IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Main Protective Bonding of Plastic Services - with internal metal
Topic Summary:
Created On: 11 February 2013 08:14 PM
Status: Post and Reply
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
1 2 Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 11 February 2013 08:14 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



djtip

Posts: 2
Joined: 11 February 2013

Apologies for the length of this post, but please stay with me.
As a newbie I am after some advice and clarification of the OSG.
Ref 4.5 (Page 41) 'There is no requirement to main bond an incoming service where the incoming service pipe is plastic, e.g. blue for potable water.'
It goes on to say 'Where there is a plastic incoming service and a metal installation within the premises, main bonding is recommended unless it has been confirmed that any metallic pipework within the building is not introducing earth potential (see 4.3).'

The reason for the question is that one of the jobs I have been asked to quote for has the LV supply on one side of the building into the garage and the water supply on the other side of the building and NO bonding at all. The job is to replace the CU, for which bonding is one of the initial considerations.

To get a conductor from the garage to within 600mm of the incoming water supply will not be easy. Need to cross the garage, cloak,hall and kitchen), initial view is either:
up into loft from garage (not too difficult), cross to other side then chase internal wall down through bedroom into kitchen,
or as above but trunk conductor down corner of bedroom and kitchen,
or take up carpet and floors on 1st floor landing and use this space but would still need to trunk down corner of kitchen,
or chase out solid ground floor and bury cable
or go round outside of house in trunking, but this crosses back door and patio doors so not easy either.

Hence my interest in the quote from the OSG. '. . . unless it has been confirmed that any metallic pipework is not introducing an earth potential.'

Q1. Is there a test that could be used to proof the lack of potential?

Q2. If there is a test, presumably this is only accurate at the time of testing and things could change to compromise the situation in the future - so arguably it does not look like a good solution. Agreed?

Q3. Has anyone else had a similar situation and how have you approached it?
My potential customer was budgeting on the cost of a CU he'd seen in Screwfix but the cable to bond his services could turn out to cost more. Any suggestions or comments on the above would be appreciated.
 11 February 2013 08:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



welchyboy

Posts: 49
Joined: 08 September 2011

Hi I have had a similar job lately

The water bond was a long awkward distance from the met, the owner was extremely difficult and fussy as to what she would accept,,in the end I used 10mm single black core clipped round the external of the house at low level and at each end where it re-entered the house I thru crimped back to 10mm earth, it actually looked really discreet and I would definitely use this method in the future as a last resort

I know it's not strictly compliant but no different than someone painting the cable, and its better bonded like that than not!

To test if you need to bond or not IR test between your MET and the house pipe work and if the reading is above 7666 ohms (thats off the top of my head, I would check that, I'll probably be corrected) then you shouldn't need to bond
 11 February 2013 08:39 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for UKPN.
UKPN

Posts: 514
Joined: 17 January 2012

-"there is no requirement to bond where the incoming service is plastic"
is this PME?
if so the requirement is to bond the service, even if the incomer is plastic.

Regards
 11 February 2013 08:44 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Martynduerden.
Martynduerden

Posts: 3211
Joined: 13 July 2008

It is not mealy earth potential, you must consider any potential that could be introduced to any special location.

You can of course test to confirm if supplementary bonding is required under the 17th.....22k ohms or greater.

Does supplementary bonding exist?

Is the Gas Bonded?

Personally I go around the outside in probably 16mm GY clipped. 10mm sounds like it might be too small for the distance.

-------------------------
Regards

Martyn.

Only a mediocre person is always at their best



www.electrical contractors uk.com
 11 February 2013 08:45 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



daveparry1

Posts: 6227
Joined: 04 July 2007

Don't make too much of the 600mm bit, as close as practicable is also mentioned! If you can pick-up on the pipework somewhere more convenient do so,

Dave.
 11 February 2013 08:50 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Parsley.
Parsley

Posts: 1024
Joined: 04 November 2004

If you have less than 22 k.between the met and the water pipework it is an extraneous~conductive~part and requires bonding as 10ma or more could flow. You need to disconnect all parallel paths not easy in existing installation and test to the incoming earth conductor. If you've got copper most would bond.

Regards
 11 February 2013 08:52 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Martynduerden.
Martynduerden

Posts: 3211
Joined: 13 July 2008

Originally posted by: daveparry1

Don't make too much of the 600mm bit, as close as practicable is also mentioned! If you can pick-up on the pipework somewhere more convenient do so,

Dave.


And label the incoming water to that effect....

Also worth calling your registration body to ask their opinion..

-------------------------
Regards

Martyn.

Only a mediocre person is always at their best



www.electrical contractors uk.com
 11 February 2013 08:57 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



welchyboy

Posts: 49
Joined: 08 September 2011

Originally posted by: Martynduerden



Personally I go around the outside in probably 16mm GY clipped. 10mm sounds like it might be too small for the distance.



Martyn - I take it you mean to up the size of the bonding cable to achieve a reading of <0.05 ohms, I actually took this up with the NIC the other day and they said increasing the required size of bonding cable due to length is not required, as long as the bonds are adequate through selection or calculation(of the earth conductor)
 11 February 2013 09:00 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message



AJJewsbury

Posts: 11504
Joined: 13 August 2003


To test if you need to bond or not IR test between your MET and the house pipe work and if the reading is above 7666 ohms (thats off the top of my head, I would check that, I'll probably be corrected) then you shouldn't need to bond

Usually the figure is derived from limiting any shock current to 10mA, allowing 1000 Ohms for body resistance - i.e. 230V/0.01 = 23k Ohms, less 1k for body resistance, gives 22k Ohms - like Martyn says. Also you may need to remove incidental connections between the pipework and MET (e.g. via c.p.c. of immersion heaters, boilers etc) to get a true reading. If no other services are extraneous, one way to achieve that might be to disconnect the MET from the means of earthing (with the power off of course) and test between the pipework and the means of earthing.

Personally I go around the outside in probably 16mm GY clipped. 10mm sounds like it might be too small for the distance.

Arghhh. If you're thinking of the 0.05 Ohms test limit, members of the GN 3 committee tried very hard to dispel that particular urban myth! BS 7671 states no limit to the resistance of main bonding conductors - just their c.s.a.

If there is a test, presumably this is only accurate at the time of testing and things could change to compromise the situation in the future - so arguably it does not look like a good solution. Agreed?

Yes and no. Yes we have to cope with reasonably forseeable, but not with any possible eventuality. I've seen plumbers leave bonding clamps, complete with their 'Safety Electrical Connection - Do No Remove' labels dangling in free air on 6" of the original pipe when a pipe was replaced (well, they did what they were told didn't they!??!) Any new underground or embedded pipework would almost certainly be plastic, so the chances of adding a source of earth potential to an existing plumbing system is probably unlikely.

- Andy.
 11 February 2013 09:01 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Martynduerden.
Martynduerden

Posts: 3211
Joined: 13 July 2008

Originally posted by: welchyboy

Originally posted by: Martynduerden

Personally I go around the outside in probably 16mm GY clipped. 10mm sounds like it might be too small for the distance.


Martyn - I take it you mean to up the size of the bonding cable to achieve a reading of <0.05 ohms, I actually took this up with the NIC the other day and they said increasing the required size of bonding cable due to length is not required, as long as the bonds are adequate through selection or calculation(of the earth conductor)


You should ignore the NIC they make up thier own rules and regs and you can be damn sure if it goes wrong and it not to the actual regs your on your own.

-------------------------
Regards

Martyn.

Only a mediocre person is always at their best



www.electrical contractors uk.com
 11 February 2013 09:12 PM
User is online View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for Legh.
Legh

Posts: 3489
Joined: 17 December 2004

So how many properties have Gas CH ?
I would think that local supplementary bonding is a necessity regardless and would probably be achieved through main protective bonding of the metallic services within the property.

Legh

-------------------------
Why do we need Vernier Calipers when we have container ships?

http://www.leghrichardson.co.uk

"Science has overcome time and space. Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space - but any objections."
 11 February 2013 10:51 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for ebee.
ebee

Posts: 5711
Joined: 02 December 2004

"My potential customer was budgeting on the cost of a CU he'd seen in Screwfix "

That says it all!

-------------------------
Regards,
Ebee (M I S P N)

Knotted cables cause Lumpy Lektrik
 13 February 2013 12:12 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



djtip

Posts: 2
Joined: 11 February 2013

Hi Guys,
thanks for all the responses I will need to go through in detail to gather concensus.

But this reply sprang out, yes the supply is PME so that means I do need to run a protective bonding conductor back to within 600mm of the water inlet pipe.

The CU cost is now a very small part of the upgrade. Wish me luck

thanks again for your replies
 13 February 2013 12:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19694
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: djtip

Hi Guys,

thanks for all the responses I will need to go through in detail to gather concensus.


But this reply sprang out, yes the supply is PME so that means I do need to run a protective bonding conductor back to within 600mm of the water inlet pipe.

The CU cost is now a very small part of the upgrade. Wish me luck

thanks again for your replies


Before you go mental with the 10mm2, if you are refering to UKPN's response, then I'm pleased to tell you it's complete bloody nonsense.

The means of earthing has no bearing on the requirements for bonding - only the size.

If you have a plastic incomer and metal pipework, then decide if it's extraneous - ie does it go back into the ground in copper for example, or leave the building to an outbuilding - if the answer is no you can be pretty certain it's not extraneous and doesn't need bonding. Test for it if you like.

regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 13 February 2013 06:59 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



primo

Posts: 439
Joined: 10 January 2008

Originally posted by: OMS[/

Test for it if you like.




As mentioned above, can be difficult in an existing installation.

With the talk of bonding any metallic installation pipe work when the incoming service is in plastic, is there not a case to be satisfied that the main bonding to the gas will also provide main bonding to the metallic water installation pipe work through the connections at the boiler? (Forgetting about any plastic connections on the pipe work for now)
 13 February 2013 07:11 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for OMS.
OMS

Posts: 19694
Joined: 23 March 2004

Originally posted by: primo

Originally posted by: OMS[/

Test for it if you like.



As mentioned above, can be difficult in an existing installation.

Maybe - not impossibe though


With the talk of bonding any metallic installation pipe work when the incoming service is in plastic, is there not a case to be satisfied that the main bonding to the gas will also provide main bonding to the metallic water installation pipe work through the connections at the boiler? (Forgetting about any plastic connections on the pipe work for now)

It may or it may not - I don't know about satisfying a case, what you have is a connection to a lump of metal that isn't extraneous anyway ?




regards

OMS

-------------------------
Failure is always an option
 13 February 2013 07:34 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



primo

Posts: 439
Joined: 10 January 2008

Good point!
 13 February 2013 11:07 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for UKPN.
UKPN

Posts: 514
Joined: 17 January 2012

"complete nonsense"
our poster should get out more, even when many practical forum members
are telling otherwise,he still insists the DNO are wrong.
we have been wrong for almost 50 years?

Regards
 13 February 2013 11:10 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for UKPN.
UKPN

Posts: 514
Joined: 17 January 2012

and another thing! 0.05, was a figure in a previous GN book, that for some
reason disappeared overnight, no doubt the 22k/10ma will as well soon!

Regards
 13 February 2013 11:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for rocknroll.
rocknroll

Posts: 8865
Joined: 03 October 2005

Originally posted by: UKPN

"complete nonsense"

our poster should get out more, even when many practical forum members

are telling otherwise,he still insists the DNO are wrong.

we have been wrong for almost 50 years?

Regards


I have to totally disagree with that and perhaps ease the burden a bit for you, it all went wrong 31 years ago in 1982.

Anyway stick to your Customer Installation Earthing Design manual EDS 06-0017 it is based on IEC 60364/BS 7671 and if you dont have access to the big bad books it gives you a basic understanding of electrical installations.

regards

-------------------------
"Take nothing but a picture,
leave nothing but footprints!"
-------------------------
"Oh! The drama of it all."
-------------------------
"You can throw all the philosophy you like at the problem, but at the end of the day it's just basic electrical theory!"
-------------------------

Edited: 13 February 2013 at 11:38 AM by rocknroll
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.