Electrical safety statistics USA vs UK

Household electrical regulations and conventions are very different between the US and the UK. First there is the 240V@50Hz vs 120V@60Hz thing. I know Cecil did a column on the historical reasons for this difference.

The UK regulations seem to be rather more safety conscious than the US. UK plugs/sockets are much larger/more solid than the US equivalent: the UK ones incorporate a removable fuse within the plug, to protect the cord/flex leading from the plug to the appliance (in case of a short within the cable). All UK plugs are 3-prong, whereas many US ones are only 2-pronged and some aren’t even polarized. The live & neutral pins on UK plugs have plastic near to the body of the plug such that its very hard to touch a live piece of metal even if you have the plug not fully inserted. Most UK sockets (I think all newly installed ones) are individually switched (i mean there is a switch next to the socket), very few US ones are. All modern UK sockets have plastic guards that spring into the holes for the live and neutral pins so that kids can’t (easily) push paperclips into the live hole and shock themselves (the guards are released by the earth pin being inserted - its slightly longer than the others and goes in first). Also, UK plugs mate somewhat more firmly into the socket, giving a more “positive” feeling connection.

In short, to an american, uk electrical connections seem big, ugly, overly paranoid, and generally an unecessary pain to find space for them, multiway adaptors are big, they’re harder to use, etc, etc. And to a briton, the US stuff seems flimsy and liable to burst into flames or deliver a fatal shock at any moment.

So my 1st question is: is the main reason for the differences simply the higher UK voltages, or are there real safety benefits to counteract the disadvantages (including the higher expense of manufacturing the larger and more complex equipment)? Does anyone have statistics to compare the per-capita electrocution rates and electrical fires traced to outlets, adaptors, extensions, etc?

Also on the topic of the UK being more stringent with electrical safety: in the US it seems to be OK to have light switches, electrical sockets, etc, in a bathroom, whereas in the UK the switch would either have to be on a cord, or outside the bathroom (so you dry your hands before operating it). And only transformer-isolated shaver-sockets are allowed in the bathroom. Again, does anyone have statistics to show whether the added safety you gain is worth the inconvenience of not being able to plug your stereo in in the bathroom and having your little brother turn the lights off on you while you’re using the toilet?

Finally, since it seems that standard sockets in the UK and USA are both rated to 13A, that means there is twice the electrical power available to appliances in the UK, right? Does that mean US toasters, kettles, microwaves, etc, all take twice as long to cook things?
Thanks,
Lev

Thanks,

Lev

Regarding the bathroom outlets, most (all?) localities in the US require that those be special outlets called Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters (GFCI). They prevent a current from going to ground, which then prevents most bathroom electrocutions. So it is not as unsafe as you may be thinking.

PDF of US Electrocution data for 2000. (latest available)

Keep in mind that about half of all electrocutions are due to industrial accidents, with unknown voltages that are not necessarily country-dependent.

The fuse in the plug in needed because of the ring mains system which seems to be virtually unique to the UK. Other countries use individually fused branch circuits the fuses/circuit breakers of which are rated low enough to also protect against a short circuit in the cord/flex or in the appliance.

What you need is a UK EE to eplain it from the UK end.

So here goes…

The UK electricity supply suffers from a safety double whammy, our mains supply voltage to domestic premises (houses and light electrical load) is 220V which is very much more dangerous than 110V, but added to this, our frequency of supply 50Hz has a harmonic of 100Hz and this is also instrumental with interfering with muscle contraction.

Other supply frequencies cause muscle contraction issues, but unfortunately the heart has a particular sensitivity to our mains frequency.

Stoppage of the heart is by far the most likely route to death by electric shock, it is the fastest and requires the least amount of current to cause a fatal incident.

You can be killed by electric shock in other ways, such as arc envelopments, flash burns, or serious internal flash burns, but the heart death route is by far the most likely route.

It takes a certain amount of current to actually stop or interfere with muscles,-

actually it is the delivery of certain amount of electrical energy over a specified period of time that kills (or Joules per second = watts just like on the medical programs with the heart defibrillators)

As you will know

Current = voltage divided by resistance (I+V/R)

So when you look at electrical safety, (and since one can only hazard a guess at what resistance will be during an electrical shock - due to many factors), it is obvious that the greater the voltage, the greater the amount of current, and hence the greater amount of energy delivered within a given period of time.

What I’m saying here is that the UK system is inherently more dangerous that the US one, and so more serious precautions have to be taken.

When you look at any electrical power supply, there are a number of cables that carry current all the time, but in the UK we have one that appears to do nothing.

This is connected to ground, and for our purposes we call it earth. The truth is, it is actually connected to a common point and the blue neutral wire is connected here also, its just not obvious to non-electrical types.

The differance is that neutral carries away the current supplied by the live wire, and returns it to the source, earth wire carries no current under non fault conditions.

If the neutral wire becomes damaged, or bared, there is very little risk to the user.(it takes fairly unusual circumstances to make neutral a hazard)

The earth wire is connected to any metal parts of the appliance that are not intended to carry current, and which the user is likely to touch, such as the chassis.

If a fault develops, where the case becomes in contact with the live wire, this dangerous voltage will be passed straight down the earth wire and to the source of supply, this is a short circuit and as a result a very large current will flow.

The current will be so large, it will very rapidly blow the fuse or trip out any safety device.

The absolute and most critical point to bear in mind is this,

The resistance of the earth path to the source of supply is designed to be very very much lower than any possible path through your body to the source of supply

This means that there should not ever be the chance for you to get a shock between live supply and earth and this is the most common way of getting a shock.

Unfortunately if you were crazy enough to open an electrical appliance and you get a shock between two parts of the circuit that are supposed to have the voltage on them, you are in serious difficulty unless there is additional protection such as a power breaker(Residual current device RCD)

There are other ways to reduce the risk, the most obvious is not to have an electrical supply in an area where hazards such as water exist, and in a bathroom a wet human is likely to have a much lower electrical resistance and hance be much more vulnerable.

The shutters in our sockets are there because we have to protect children and the inherently stupid from our potentially lethal electrical system.(I know of one old girl who used a metal handle table knife to lever out plugs from sockets :eek: )

You will also have noticed that our plug prongs are much larger than most anywhere else, this allows for better electrical connections with less resistance, and this helps in reducing nny resistance in the earth path, again, for electrical safety, and also, large prongs can dissipate more heat and so we can use those plugs to run appliances which use more current.

If a US socket were rated at 13Amp and a UK socket is also rated at 13Amp, the UK socket will deliver twice as much power because the mains voltage is also twice as high.

We in the UK are somewhat paranoid about electrical safety, our standards are very high, some might argue too high, but then, idiots abound over here so maybe we have the right idea.

In the US the 110V system is intended for light electrical loads, I doubt that you would want to run say a cooker on 110V as you would need a large current flow to provide the power, and this would need very large cables, where we in the UK can get away with perhaps 6mm cable(I still use 10mm), you would need at least 12mm cable and possibly as much as 20mm cable to carry the current that would have the same heating effect (basically you would need twice as much current on 100V as on 220V)

I think you will find that US domestic supplies have circuits for this purpose, and that large installed appliances like cookers have a 220v supply available.

I can think of a couple of ways of doing this, you can have a domestic supply that is fed from 3 wires, from a transformer, which is centre tapped.

The centre tap is the return line for either of the two 110v feeders, and if you want 220V then you connect across the two 110v feeders.

Even with this US arrangement it is inherently safer than the UK, because you are most likely going to get a shock between one of the 110V feeders and return and most unlikely to get a shock by being connected somehow to both 110V feeders.

Having our system of earth connection has some advantages, because modern circuit breakers work very reliably in such a configuration, and they trip out bery quickly indeed.

The US version of the power breaker used to be voltage operated compared to our current operated breakers, ours tend to be very much more sensitive and trip out at lower fault currents.

Being the overseas counterpart of CASDAVE,(who did an excellent job of explaining BTW), I can address a couple of things.
In the States the light switches in the bathrooms have to be far enough away from the tub or shower as to not be within reach. The switches also have to be grounded, for safety. The outlets in the bathrooms need to be on a GFCI breaker or there must be a GFCI device installed as the outlet itself. The outlets for the Kitchen and bathrooms must be on seperate 20 amp circuits. The rest of the residential outlets are rated at 15 amps not 13.

Regarding the Kitchen 20 amp ciruits at 110v verses the UK version at 220v;
The units are rated in WATTS which is a function of the volts and the amps. A 1500 watt toaster in the UK would heat the same as a 1500 watt toaster in the US even though they use different voltages. If you needed to hook up some commercial equipment in your kithcen then the 220 volt source would be more efficient. Most home appliances don`t get too nuts in this regard so the WATT rating is the only thing that you need to consider.

I didn’t know this. But I’m afraid I’m a little skeptical. Is there really much difference between 50Hz and 60Hz. Or rather 100Hz and 120Hz?

So since the currents are the same but the UK has bigger terminals, the UK hopes for better safety, here. I seem to have found the answer to my third question in a thread from a couple days back, where dopers were testing US and UK electric kettles and concluded that the UK ones boil water faster: Are 110v electric kettles too slow?

This is why I was hoping for some real numbers, to see if the paranoia is justified.

I understand. But there is less power available from a standard US socket, so that the maximum in the US is about 1500W and the maximum in the UK is 3000W, allowing things that really want to heat stuff up fast to work better in the uk, like electric kettles and space heaters and such. I’ve heard of 20Amp US sockets, with a T-shaped slot, to allow either normal or high-current appliances, but I’ve never seen them in reality.

Lev

Thanks, tschild. I did some reading about the ring system, which seems to be controversial even amongst tradespeople. On the advantage side it lets you use less wiring for the same load (cheaper on copper), gives you a better earth (hence faster tripping breakers, better safety, etc), you get away with fewer (larger) breakers for a house which may possibly be cheaper. On the minus side, its harder to know what’s going on in a system, especially one that’s been rewired a few times, and you might not be able to see how to isolate part of the ring properly, and tradespeople get electrocuted sometimes, you have to have the individual fuses in plugs, which can be a troubleshooting problem, because there is redundancy, there can be serious problems with the circuit (like breaks in the wire) and yet it can appear to be functioning correctly (not good).

I see rumours that the UK ring system is possibly going to be phased out in the future.

Lev

I know you know this, casdave, but to clear up any possible confusion for others, the equation should read I = V / R.

Here is a site giving a few easily understood details about injuries due to electrocution.

http://www.diy.ukcentre.com/electrical_hazards.htm

There are very many other injuries caused by electrical equiment such as folk drilling through sundry limbs, bandsawing off various appendages etc and it isn’t clear if those figures are included in these totals.

As for the 50Hz vs 60Hz risk of electric shock debate, this has be documented for much longer than you might expect levsb.

It was certainly known about when large scale rollout of electrical supply systems were first being installed.

From here

http://physics.about.com/cs/physicists/a/tesla1_4.htm

So perhaps Tesla knew of this.
50Hz to 60Hz does not sound a big differance, but what I’d be willing to bet is that if you got a 20% increase in you CPU speed in your computer you certainly would notice the differance.

In actuality, as you increase the frequency, it takes more current to kill you, there is a medical treatment called diathermy where the patient is supplied with a current of 500mA (0.5A) at frequencies of around 10MHz.

A shock of around 100A (0.1A)at 50Hz would kill you no trouble, in fact a shock of 50mA at 50Hz is capable of stopping your heart, though you would be fairly unlucky for this to occur(0.05A ie One tenth of the current that is needed to kill at 10MHz)

My guess is that you are looking at the differance between 50Hz and 60Hz in absolute terms, and 10Hz doesn’t seem much, but look at it in relative terms and thats when you get the 20%.

Although 60Hz presents a few technical problems in terms of increased circuit reactance it does have some advantages in that transformers can be smaller and on national networkds this adds up to a large saving in terms of resources, large transformes and switchgear can take up a lot of land.

It’s pretty easy to figure out where 50 Hz comes from. For transformers and such, higher frequencies are better. Transformers for 400 Hz (used commonly on aircraft) are significantly smaller and lighter than a 60 Hz transformer for the same amount of power. Things like transformers and such tend to vibrate a bit due to the magnetic effects of the electricity going through them, which produces the transformer “hum” that most folks are familiar with. Most people can’t hear much below 100 Hz, so if you want to pick the highest frequency that’s a relatively even number, but is also below 100, you’ll end up with 50.

It’s a little harder to figure out where 60 Hz came from. It’s fairly well documented that edison’s folks would go around electrocuting animals, but even so I’m not convinced that 60 Hz was chosen because of safety reasons. Another story I’ve heard is that one of the early test systems was running at 50 Hz, and it couldn’t quite generate enough power. So, they cranked up the generator a bit, and it did what it needed to. Then all of the systems sold were cloned off of that, and therefore ran at 60 Hz. I’ve never been able to find a good cite for this, and it may not be true, but it’s at least an urban legend of sorts among older power engineers.

Considering how many different systems were in use in the early days (50 Hz, 60 Hz, and even other oddball frequencies, and voltages also varied) I tend to believe that the US standardization on 60 Hz had a lot more to do with luck and who’s system was more popular due to marketing, than any technical reason.

As far as I’m aware, 50 and 60 Hz are both fairly deadly to the heart. One of my co-workers was involved in the design of early pacemakers, and has mentioned on several occasions that the heart is particularly sensitive to frequencies around 60 Hz. I’ve always had the impression that 60 was the more dangerous of the two, but I’ve never seen any hard data either way. I know from my co-worker that early animal tests would use 60 Hz to get the heart out of whack, so that the pacemaker or defibrillator being tested had something to test on. That clearly indicates that 60 Hz ain’t safe by any stretch of the imagination.

Well IEC 60479-1 doesn’t seem to make any distinction between 50Hz and 60Hz in terms of shock hazard. See: http://www.schneiderelectric.com.tr/ftp/literature/publications/ECT114.pdf figure 6. Figure 9 in the same document shows the effect of the frequency, and seems to indicate that both 50Hz and 60Hz are just about the worst possible frequencies but that there’s not a lot in it between the two of them.

Lev

I have also heard a possibly untrue urban legend that the reason for the US choosing 60Hz was under pressure from domestic equipment manufacturers who asked that the system be made incompatible to the 50Hz system that was emerging in europe partially due to the AEG monopoly. This was to protect the domestic industry from european competition.

Haven’t found any reliable evidence for this though.

Lev

For some strange reason the German Railway network uses 16.666 Hz for its electric trains . Where on earth did that strange frequency come from, apart from it being one sixth of a hundred ?

getting back to my original question. the following links give various statistics:
http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_buildreg/documents/page/odpm_breg_600372.pdf

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/electro.pdf

http://www.cpsc.gov/library/fire99.pdf

The methodologies are different, but my interpretation of the figures is that the electrical dangers in terms of death by electrocution, injuries due to electrical fire, fatalities due to electrical fire, total number of elecrtical fires, are all about 2 to 3 times higher in the US than in the UK. (In terms of the per capita risk).

It doesn’t really answer my question about the plugs and sockets however, since this includes faults with appliances, faults with the wiring in the walls and at the distribution panel, etc.

So my first question still stands, does anyone have real statistics about the safety of plugs, sockets, multiway adaptors, in terms of shock and fire, for the two countries.

Lev

Lev

Because the electrical motors used at that time were series wound motors with commutator and brushes. During commutation (changeover between windings on the rotor) part of the rotor winding is short-circuited via the brush. There is an AC voltage, induced from the field coils into the rotor coils, between two adjacent commutator contacts. This AC voltage is proportional to the mains frequency and it is short-cicuited by the brush. Which means lower mains frequency = less wear on commutator and brushes. Ideally (for the motor) the mains frequency would be zero i.e. DC, but that would rule out the use of transformers, of course (Electrical locomotives used to be series wound motors powered by a variable tap from an on-engine transformer)

The 16 2/3 Hz frequency is also in use by some other railways in Europe (at least by those in Switzerland and Norway). The electrical power is generated by motor-generator sets and by some dedicated generators in power stations.

Of course electrical locomotives built in the last two decades use mostly three-phase motors driven by electronic converters, so the lower frequency would not be used if the network were to be built from scratch now.

Throwaway comments are just that, “Throwaway”…you need to understand the full story.

By the way I am a Brit, but I have lived in Germany for 33 years now, I know both systems (and the US Systems too) far better than most…

You are looking at the problem from the wrong angle. Its because each plug has its own fuse that allows the ring main to be safe.

In Germany, you often have ONLY 16 amp fuses or breakers on each circuit and seldom an RCD, even though they have been mandated for some years…so until a fault current + normal current exceeds the 16 amps, it will not release, leaving some objects stay “LIVE” and VERY dangerous…

I have 3 RCDs in my house, one per phase, where the mains enters the house…

In the UK, the fuse in the plug must be selected to supply the device. This prevents the main breaker being dropped for no reason…

Also, for all new builds since the 60’s, a RCD device is required. For all houses since the 80’s I believe, no matter how old, they need an RCD…

Plus the continental plugs used in Germany and other countries are awful, the sockets have exposed holes that tiny fingers can enter, or push things into and get themselves shocked or worse…

The US plugs are no better and carry twice the current for the same power transfer…

All in all, the UK ring main system is about as good as it gets, which is why it is used by many other countries as well around the world!!!

Regards

Andy

It’s used by about five other countries around the world. Having said that, it constantly astounds me that something as simple and obvious as the UK wall switch is not standard everywhere.

After seeing some of the electric circuit questions and answers on here, I am left in no doubt at all that the UK ring main is the better and safer system. As to the frequency question, I have no idea, but, without any cite, I understand that more people are killed by the secondary effect of a shock like falling, than by the shock itself. AC current has the beneficial effect of throwing you off the contact.

My UK house has four separate rings, two, rated at 5 amps for lighting and two at 30 amps for mains power. There is also a direct line, rated at 40 amps, as a power supply for the electric cooker. All are protected by RCDs at the distributor (fuse box) and by individual fuses in the plug of every appliance. All circuits are three wire, with the earths making a complete connected network. In addition, all copper plumbing is bonded to earth near the taps. (This came from the introduction of plastic plumbing).

I read recently that insurance companies have started to check the fuse ratings on appliances that catch fire. If the fuse has too high a rating they can reject a claim. Most non-power appliances like lamps and TVs etc. should have a 3 amp fuse.

It is commonly believed that power outlets are not allowed in bathrooms, but in fact they are, subject to a ‘safe zone’ which makes it impossible to reach them while actually in the bath. We also have low voltage outlets for electric shavers etc.

It is also permitted to have a spur, extending from a ring.