No bonding on new build

[green-hornet]

I still think that some people are confused over what is a regulation and what is a habbit.

As I have said I still bond to gas and water EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE REQUIREDThe regulations clearly state that where the service pipe is in plastic there is no requirement to bond. However the electrician must be satisfied that there is no earth potential.

I have to admit that I do main bond out of habbit, but under the circumstances I suppose I should call it supplemental bonding, because without potential to earth thats all it ever will be.

 

[SteveH37]

I still think that some people are confused over what is a regulation and what is a habbit.As I have said I still bond to gas and water EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE REQUIREDThe regulations clearly state that where the service pipe is in plastic there is no requirement to bond. However the electrician must be satisfied that there is no earth potential.

I have to admit that I do main bond out of habbit, but under the circumstances I suppose I should call it supplemental bonding, because without potential to earth thats all it ever will be.

This is my habbit also, and will continue to be so until all bonding is outlawed in the 18th edition with immediate requirement for removal of all CPC conductors within any installation in the UK. You never know!

bad day explode

 

[Graham Lister]

If you go back and read the posts you will see..It is extraneous metal parts that need bonding..

Not each and every bit of metal that happens to be in the building.

I will refer my technical reference regarding how to install electrical installations to the relevant current regs and standards such as BS7671..

Not an out of date link from a plumbing site (hepworth plumbing !!!: O)

referring to OLD regs! or trying to do searches to see what Peter cook and Dudley Moore say...

The front of my regs book doesn't say Author Peter Cook?

there are in fact a whole bunch of esteemed technical persons listed in the front of BS7671 (page 8) not just one name!?

or do you suggest I do searches on each one of these as well to ask their opinions? :|

I shall stick to MY regs books thank you

and the various guidance notes

and such sites as the various Approved contractor schemes..

etc..

If every the worst case arose and I had to be defending myself in court..

I would certainly NOT want oh be saying oh but Peter Cook said do this!!!

Not my post but another from an esteemed member of the IEE

It would be interesting if people tried disconnecting the main earthing conductor from the MET and test between the two (e.g. between MET with all bonding, CPCs etc connected; and true earth). I've tried it a couple of times now, with installations with plastic supplies and copper internal plumbing hoping to prove that the copper isn't extraneous, but been disappointed both times - once the reading was (from memory) about 15k - which turned out to be the pressure relief pipe from the combi boiler which ended up outside in a damp corner just above a gully, the other was (from even dimmer memory) only a few hundred ohms (I didn't have time to track the cause of that one down).

The 17th has introduced an extra complication in the form of regulation 528.3.4 (ii) - "Where an electrical service is located in close proximity to one or more non-electrical services .... Fault protection shall be afforded in accordance with the requirements of Section 411, non-electrical metallic services being considered as extraneous-conductive-parts."

Which I take as meaning that if the electrical system gets close to copper plumbing (e.g. cables and pipes run in the same floor void), then the pipework will need bonding whether it's extraneous- or not. (It seems to be rather a mute point whether conventionally sized bonding conductors (e.g. half the size of the earthing conductor) would necessarily be up to the job of carrying fault currents....)

In a new build you cant prove its not extraneous without testing it and you will not be able to run the cable in after so it's best to put the bonding in place.

Mr Special the pipe along with any other metal structure or furniture that "may reasonably forseeably become charged as a result of either the use of a sytem, or a fault in the sytem, becomes so charged" will need to be bonded to earth to comply with Regulation 8 of the EAWR 1989.

You do the risk assessment, after all if you are signing the certificate you may have to account for your actions if the wheel comes off.

 

[Apache]

Not my post but another from an esteemed member of the IEE

MMM, are you really Paul Cook of the IEE?

That would clear a few things up

 

[Andy™]

Please read this informed article by Paul Cook of the IEE.http://www.plasticpipesgroup.com/pdfs/earthbonding.pdf

On the bottom of the second page the following remark is made

If the incoming pipes are made of plastic, but the pipes within the electrical installation are made of metal, the main bonding must be carried out. The bonding being applied on the customer side of any meter, main stopcock or insulating insert and of course to the metal pipes of the installation.

The esteemed posters on here stating that a plastic incomer with copper internal pipework doesnt have to be bonded need to rethink what they have posted.

problem with that being i work to 7671:2008. which states bonding is not always required

 

[Graham Lister]

Andy look 3 posts up. Also the OP states its a new build built 2008. That could be 16th or 17th edition. I agree with virtually everything you post Andy as you are probably one of the most real world sparks on here. Its just in this case it is a bit dodgy to say the main bond to the water can be disregarded out of hand.

 

[Andy™]

but nothing has changed since 16th.....

413-02-02 is almost word for word the same as 411.3.1.2, which states gas/water only needs an earth if extraneous. if its not extraneous, it doesnt need earthed.

 

[PBC_1966]

This is where I feel recent editions of the regs. are getting watered down to the point of vagueness, and why I really don't put much store by them any more.

As I quoted above, the older regs. always specifically stated that metallic water systems must be bonded and with good reason, I feel.

For comparison, here's what the old 14th edition went on to say about extraneous conductive parts:

D.14 The exposed metalwork of all apparatus which is required by these Regulations to be earthed, which might otherwise come into fortuitous contact with extraneous fixed metalwork shall be either effectually segregated therefrom or effectually bonded thereto so as to prevent appreciable voltage differences at such possible points of contact (see also Regulation B.53). NOTE 1. - The extraneous fixed metalwork required to be bonded and earthed in these circumstances includes the following:

(i) Baths and exposed metal pipes, radiators, sinks and tanks, in the absence of metal-to-metal joints of negligible electrical resistance.

(ii) Where practicable, accessible structural metalwork.

(iii) Framework of mobile equipment on which electrical apparatus is mounted, such as cranes and lifts.

NOTE 2. - There are special requirements for bonding to metalwork of other services in P.M.E. installations (see Regulation D.34(iii) and Item 4(2) of Appendix 5).

So the idea of "if you can't segregate it, bond it" is long established. But the old regs. recognized that where you have an substantial amount of electrically connected metalwork (copper water pipes) extending throughout a sizeable part of the house, it's impractical that it can be segregated from all possible sources of becoming energized at every point, and thus it must be bonded.

 

[kme]

Mr. Lister:

I wasn`t aware of any posters suggesting it could be "disregarded out of hand"; or did I miss summat?

Yes, 2008 could be 16th OR 17th. If we were knew which it was, the digression over bond / maybe bond would be, shall we say, "extraneous"?

Your comments and apparent blind following of an out-of-date comment from a member of the IEE suggest you had either:

a. Not realised the regulations under 17th were different, OR

b. You have pre-decided that this IS a 16th install?

Whichever the case, the piece of ground you appear to be trying to defend looks a tad unstable, from where I objectively look at it. Further, IMO, Comments such as:

I agree with virtually everything you post Andy as you are probably one of the most real world sparks on here

serve no useful purpose, other than to inflate Andy`s ego (Admin! where`s the pins? )

If we are to have an informed discussion, it must, by definition, have sufficient information to provide the basis of the discussion. Perhaps we need to split this thread - one for the reg. if it is to 16th, and another to the 17th?

Or, (and I prefer this), we endeavour to have the discussion continue; with the caveat that the regs in force at the time are possibly 16th, or 17th?

KME

 

[Lurch]

Whatever the outcome, try not to let it drag on too long. there's a bloke here wandering round with a drum of 10mm wondering whether to use it or not.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Mr Special the pipe along with any other metal structure or furniture that "may reasonably forseeably become charged as a result of either the use of a sytem, or a fault in the sytem, becomes so charged" will need to be bonded to earth to comply with Regulation 8 of the EAWR 1989. You do the risk assessment, after all if you are signing the certificate you may have to account for your actions if the wheel comes off.

Valid point Graham, but I think you will find that BS7671 has taken this point into consideration when writing the guidance regulations.

And 'EAWR 29' the defence of taking all reasonable steps, exercised all due diligence etc. etc.. etc..

would no doubt reference the proper compliance with BS7671 which after all is

the standard for the design & erection of electrical installation so as to provide safety and proper functioning for the intended use:

(thats reg 120.1, if you weren't clear where it came from.)

So the best risk assessment is using BS7671 as the benchmark IMHO.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

Andy look 3 posts up. Also the OP states its a new build built 2008. That could be 16th or 17th edition. I agree with virtually everything you post Andy as you are probably one of the most real world sparks on here. Its just in this case it is a bit dodgy to say the main bond to the water can be disregarded out of hand.

I do believe I said that way back at post #20!

4.4 Main protective bonding of plastic servicesPage 29 on site guide.

and

4.7 Supplementary bonding of plastic pipe installations

Page 31 on site guide.

come to mind???

I suspect the house builder was probably right?

What was the resistance between any metal pipework & earth prior to you putting a bond on?

i.e.

Measure it

See if it IS extraneous? :x

 

[PBC_1966]

Maybe wandering off on a slight tangent, but typing that 14th edition extract above I was reminded of an incident a few years ago relating to note 1, part (ii).

There are still quite a few of the old prefabs where I live in with metal roof trusses mounted across the tops of pre-cast concrete walls. I had a call from the local plumber I know: Apparently he'd been crawling around up there working on pipework when he laid across one of the horizontal sections of metalwork and got zapped. Sure enough, when I tested it, the entire metallic roof truss was live. As is not at all unusual in these places, the cables in the attic had just been thrown casually across the roof space in the shortest possible route without fixing or any regard for what was below them, then the owner had piled dozens of boxes of stuff up there, crushing cables between the heavy boxes and the metal crossbeams. Sure enough, I found one cable damaged right through to the copper on a sharp ridge of metal.

I ended up running a new bonding cable up to the roof and across to every truss section.

 

[SPECIAL LOCATION]

The 17th has introduced an extra complication in the form of regulation 528.3.4 (ii) - "Where an electrical service is located in close proximity to one or more non-electrical services .... Fault protection shall be afforded in accordance with the requirements of Section 411, non-electrical metallic services being considered as extraneous-conductive-parts."

Which I take as meaning that if the electrical system gets close to copper plumbing (e.g. cables and pipes run in the same floor void), then the pipework will need bonding whether it's extraneous- or not. (It seems to be rather a mute point whether conventionally sized bonding conductors (e.g. half the size of the earthing conductor) would necessarily be up to the job of carrying fault currents....)

Hello again Graham

 

[steptoe]

Not my post but another from an esteemed member of the IEEIt would be interesting if people tried disconnecting the main earthing conductor from the MET and test between the two (e.g. between MET with all bonding, CPCs etc connected; and true earth). I've tried it a couple of times now, with installations with plastic supplies and copper internal plumbing hoping to prove that the copper isn't extraneous, but been disappointed both times - once the reading was (from memory) about 15k - which turned out to be the pressure relief pipe from the combi boiler which ended up outside in a damp corner just above a gully, the other was (from even dimmer memory) only a few hundred ohms (I didn't have time to track the cause of that one down).

The 17th has introduced an extra complication in the form of regulation 528.3.4 (ii) - "Where an electrical service is located in close proximity to one or more non-electrical services .... Fault protection shall be afforded in accordance with the requirements of Section 411, non-electrical metallic services being considered as extraneous-conductive-parts."

Which I take as meaning that if the electrical system gets close to copper plumbing (e.g. cables and pipes run in the same floor void), then the pipework will need bonding whether it's extraneous- or not. (It seems to be rather a mute point whether conventionally sized bonding conductors (e.g. half the size of the earthing conductor) would necessarily be up to the job of carrying fault currents....)

In a new build you cant prove its not extraneous without testing it and you will not be able to run the cable in after so it's best to put the bonding in place.

Mr Special the pipe along with any other metal structure or furniture that "may reasonably forseeably become charged as a result of either the use of a sytem, or a fault in the sytem, becomes so charged" will need to be bonded to earth to comply with Regulation 8 of the EAWR 1989.

You do the risk assessment, after all if you are signing the certificate you may have to account for your actions if the wheel comes off.

good quote,

I wonder if next year people will be quoting me?

makes about as much sense, I write stuff that some people regard as total tat on the internet too.

 

[ianmacd]

So I don't read stuff for a day or so and the there are far too many threads to read so forgive me if this has been covered before (only skim read it).

So it would seem that some believe just because a pipe is coming into a property as plastic the metal pipes do not need bonding.

In each installation main protective bonding conductors complying with Chapter 54 shall connect to the Main Earthing Terminal extraneous-conductive-parts including the followingi) Water installation pipes

(ii) Gas installation pipes

(iii) Other installation pipework and ducting

(iv) Central heating and air conditioning systems

(v) Exposed metallic structural parts of the building

Connection of a lightening protection system to the protective equipotential bonding shall be made in accordance with BS EN 62305.

Where an installation serves more than one building the above requirement shall be applied to each building.

To comply with the requirements of these Regulations it is also necessary to apply equipotential bonding to any metallic sheath of a telecommunications cable. However, the consent of the owner or operator of the cable shall be obtained.

I do not think there is any disagreement that any extraneous-conductive-parts need bonding but there may be confusion of what extraneous-conductive-parts in this context is.

Extraneous-conductive-part. A conductive part liable to introduce a potential, generally Earth potential, and not forming part of the electrical installation.

In that case I can not see how the internal metal water or gas pipes can not be seen as extraneous-conductive-parts. They have the ability to introduce a potential.

 

[Nicky Tesla]

So then, can you tell us all, what fixed metalwork in a building doesNOT, have the ABILITY of introducing a potential???

 

[Andy™]

steel lintel

metallic handrail

metallic door

 

[Nicky Tesla]

They all have the ability, so lets all bond them from now on

 

[Andy™]

yes, anything has the ability to become live when you stick a live conductor onto it.