Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Main Forums
Electrical Inspection & Testing Forum
EICR - Structural Steel Main Protective Bonding
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support Talk Electrician Forum:
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Timotei" data-source="post: 525822" data-attributes="member: 25363"><p>EICR on commercial premises approx 8 yrs old. Structural steel is confirmed by test as extraneous conductive part. No EIC / paperwork available.</p><p></p><p>MPB to gas / water services confirmed visually and by measurement - 1 continuous conductor serves both. Unable to visually locate MPB to structural steel, but MPB conductor for water / gas is not accessible throughout its run, so may be connected to structural steel at some hidden point. Only MEC and 1 x MPBC enter the DB.</p><p></p><p>Continuity test from exposed structural steel (by wander lead of approx 15 metres) to MET gives 0.2Ω.</p><p></p><p>Would you consider this to be satisfactory evidence of an unlocated MPB to structural steel? As this is potentially the resistivity of the MPBC and a significant amount of structural steel, my thoughts are "yes", with a C3 coding as there is no MPB connection available for inspection in accordance with 543.3.2</p><p></p><p>I have, however, been told by "someone" (who will remain nameless) that if my continuity reading is greater than 0.05Ω I must code as unsatisfactory with a C1 or C2. I have argued that the 0.05Ω figure is an exemplar reading for an end to end test on an MPBC, not applicable when measured as I have had to do (see above).</p><p></p><p>Would appreciate thoughts on how best to /how you would proceed.</p><p></p><p>Thanks,</p><p></p><p>Timotei</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Timotei, post: 525822, member: 25363"] EICR on commercial premises approx 8 yrs old. Structural steel is confirmed by test as extraneous conductive part. No EIC / paperwork available. MPB to gas / water services confirmed visually and by measurement - 1 continuous conductor serves both. Unable to visually locate MPB to structural steel, but MPB conductor for water / gas is not accessible throughout its run, so may be connected to structural steel at some hidden point. Only MEC and 1 x MPBC enter the DB. Continuity test from exposed structural steel (by wander lead of approx 15 metres) to MET gives 0.2Ω. Would you consider this to be satisfactory evidence of an unlocated MPB to structural steel? As this is potentially the resistivity of the MPBC and a significant amount of structural steel, my thoughts are "yes", with a C3 coding as there is no MPB connection available for inspection in accordance with 543.3.2 I have, however, been told by "someone" (who will remain nameless) that if my continuity reading is greater than 0.05Ω I must code as unsatisfactory with a C1 or C2. I have argued that the 0.05Ω figure is an exemplar reading for an end to end test on an MPBC, not applicable when measured as I have had to do (see above). Would appreciate thoughts on how best to /how you would proceed. Thanks, Timotei [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Main Forums
Electrical Inspection & Testing Forum
EICR - Structural Steel Main Protective Bonding
Top