[RE-wrenches] Target Fire

Bob-O Schultze bob-o at electronconnection.com
Wed May 6 18:46:58 PDT 2009


Kent,
Sort of makes the case for the GFPs to be in the combiner boxes on  
large systems, doesn't it? Obviously nearly worthless at the inverter  
in this case.
Bob-O


On May 6, 2009, at 3:52 PM, Kent Osterberg wrote:

Richard,

I 100% agree with you.

The thing that concerns me most is that the last exhibit in the report  
shows that the GFP scheme that our industry has relied on to provide  
fire protection doesn't work very well.  As PV system size gets larger  
there are more and more opportunities for an undetected fault on a  
grounded conductor that disables the GFP.  Then a second fault, on an  
ungrounded conductor, isn't cleared.  There will be more fires.  And  
they can't lay all the blame on the contractor.

Kent Osterberg
Blue Mountain Solar


Richard L Ratico wrote:
>
> Kent,
>
> I'm trying not to lose sight of the forest for the trees here. I  
> agree that the
> expansion joint is probably completely functional. It also appears  
> to be a well
> intentioned effort by the installer to anticipate and compensate for  
> the
> inevitable movement in the conduit run. The installer took the  
> initiative, after
> all, since the design did not call for it.
>
> My point is, even had the installer used the correct EMT type fitting,
> functional or not, the fault would still have happened. With the EMT  
> restrained
> by overly tight straps, it would still have pulled apart at the  
> loose coupling,
> the nearest, weakest link.
>
> But, had the installer followed through, using the appropriate RMC  
> to match the
> choice of expansion coupling, the fault may well have been  
> prevented. Even when
> very loose, threaded fittings are unlikely to pull apart completely.  
> Of course,
> using 423' of 3" RMC instead of EMT, would have resulted in a more  
> expensive
> job, though as a percentage of the overall cost, maybe it wouldn't  
> have amounted
> to much.
>
> IMHO, Monday morning quarterbacking, EMT was a poor choice for this  
> system,
> subject to nearly 4" of movement. On a job of this scale, there are  
> simply too
> many opportunities for a loose coupling to occur, whether initially on
> installation, or over time after repeated thermal cycling. S...  
> happens. Kind of
> analogous to why we pull an equipment grounding conductor in metal  
> conduit
> systems, even though the conduit itself provides an equipment  
> ground. RMC would
> provide for much better sleeping at night. PVC, nasty as it is in  
> some respects,
> in this case, would have been significantly less likely to start a  
> fire. It's
> harder to forget to glue a joint than to overlook wrenching an EMT  
> coupling. If
> one does pull apart, since PVC is nonconductive, it's less likely to  
> cause a
> fault. Better yet, as the report recommends, is to design a means to  
> clear the
> fault, should one occur.
>
> In a perfect world, EMT might be fine.
>
> Dick
>
>
> Richard,
>
> I think you are right, the weakest link in the chain was a  
> compression fitting.
> Maybe one that was not properly tightened.   An EMT connector will  
> thread right
> into a RMC coupling and it doesn't look like it would interfere with  
> the
> expansion joint motion, so I still think the expansion joint may be  
> functional.
> It should slip with modest hand pressure.  Wouldn't the installer  
> notice if an
> expansion joint wouldn't work?  And then not use it.  it just  
> wouldn't make any
> sense to install it in if it didn't work.
>
> Kent
>
>
> Richard L Ratico wrote:
>
>
> Kent,
>
> I looked at the photo of that expansion coupling and initially  
> thought, "That'll
> work". But....  if the conduit was RMC OR IMC all the joints would  
> have been
> THREADED into couplings, and even if by mistake they were not wrench  
> tight, they
> would not have pulled apart. Even if strapped too tightly, the roof  
> blocks would
> probably pull over first. With EMT, contraction pulled apart the  
> weakest link in
> the chain, a loose slip fitting.
>
> Thanks William.
>
> Dick
> Solarwind Electric
>
> --- You wrote:
> 2) The expansion joint fabricated from adapters for different conduit
> systems probably works fine and may not have been a contributing  
> factor
> to this fire, but it is prominently visible in the report.
> --- end of quote ---
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> List sponsored by Home Power magazine
>
> List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org
>
> Options & settings:
> http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org
>
> List rules & etiquette:
> www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm
>
> Check out participant bios:
> www.members.re-wrenches.org
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.287 / Virus Database: 270.12.20/2100 - Release Date:  
> 05/06/09 06:04:00
>
>
_______________________________________________
List sponsored by Home Power magazine

List Address: RE-wrenches at lists.re-wrenches.org

Options & settings:
http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List-Archive: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org

List rules & etiquette:
www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm

Check out participant bios:
www.members.re-wrenches.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org/attachments/20090506/295a8247/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the RE-wrenches mailing list