Extraneous conductive parts in outbuildings

[Engineer54]

Can you clarify?

IMHO, until the meaning of the words 'building' and 'electrical installation' are clearly defined in the regs, the answer is about as clear as mud lol.

Does the introduction of a meter in what is essentially a submain for all intents and purposes split an installation in two?

I don't worry about what the Reg's define, i think it comes down to commonsense and what you want to achieve and why...

Yep, ....basically anytime the pipework (or any other metalwork) enters a building or a dwelling in a multi dwelling building that is bringing with it an extraneous means of earth, then bonding is required whether it has been bonded elsewhere on the installation or not. The introduction of a meter basically just denotes a boundary within a multi dwelling building. IMO essential to main bond service pipework and the like, as it enters that boundary, as the occupier has no control over what happens to any service pipework outside of he's boundary lines....

In the case of multi dwellings installations, this is especially the case where the fabric of the building can introduce extraneous elements to metallic service pipes etc, such as concrete framed and floored constructions....

In latter years this is less of a potential problem due to the prolific use of non metallic service and internal pipework. But can and will continue to cause problems to existing metal pipework, where sections are being converted to non metallic.

We are only talking about simple domestic stuff here, i can assure you it get's far, far more complicated when it comes to hospitals (with their many piped services) and say heavy industrial installations, where there are many service metal pipeworks that pass through several buildings....

 

[Guest55]

some stuff..............

whos been a naughty boy then ?

are you the same skelton electrical thats been arguing and insulting OMS on the IET forum ??

tsk tsk. ;-)

 

[D Skelton]

I don't worry about what the Reg's define, i think it comes down to commonsense and what you want to achieve and why...

Yep, ....basically anytime the pipework (or any other metalwork) enters a building or a dwelling in a multi dwelling building that is bringing with it an extraneous means of earth, then bonding is required whether it has been bonded elsewhere on the installation or not. The introduction of a meter basically just denotes a boundary within a multi dwelling building. IMO essential to main bond service pipework and the like, as it enters that boundary, as the occupier has no control over what happens to any service pipework outside of he's boundary lines....

In the case of multi dwellings installations, this is especially the case where the fabric of the building can introduce extraneous elements to metallic service pipes etc, such as concrete framed and floored constructions....

In latter years this is less of a potential problem due to the prolific use of non metallic service and internal pipework. But can and will continue to cause problems to existing metal pipework, where sections are being converted to non metallic.

We are only talking about simple domestic stuff here, i can assure you it get's far, far more complicated when it comes to hospitals (with their many piped services) and say heavy industrial installations, where there are many service metal pipeworks that pass through several buildings....

I agree with much of what you say, but the problem is, you cannot treat 'common sense' or opinion as a requirement. Common sense would be the reason I would install bonding to each individual occupied space within a building but I cannot see that it is actually required, therefore I wouldn't be telling others that it is required. I'd be pointing them in the direction of all the relevant regulations and telling them to interpret it for themselves.

The bit I do disagree on is hospitals and larger industrial installations being harder when there are several services passing through several buildings. I would argue that they are easier than say an office block or block of flats because the regs are clear about the requirements for bonding having to be met at each seperate building to all extraneous conductive parts whereas the regs are far from clear when it comes to a multiple occupancy building.

 

[D Skelton]

whos been a naughty boy then ?

are you the same skelton electrical thats been arguing and insulting OMS on the IET forum ??

tsk tsk. ;-)

Oh lordy, we mustn't question OMS, he's right about EVERYTHING you know!

 

[Guest55]

Oh lordy, we mustn't question OMS, he's right about EVERYTHING you know!

unfortunately he's probably gonna tear you a new --- in many tech debates most days of the week.

its just a fact of life theres always a bigger fish...............
;-)

 

[D Skelton]

unfortunately he's probably gonna tear you a new --- in many tech debates most days of the week.

its just a fact of life theres always a bigger fish...............
;-)

For sure! The fella definitely knows his stuff! But on that one point, he's wrong, and unlike many others on that forum with their tongues up his a$$, I ain't afraid to say it!

 

[Engineer54]

I agree with much of what you say, but the problem is, you cannot treat 'common sense' or opinion as a requirement. Common sense would be the reason I would install bonding to each individual occupied space within a building but I cannot see that it is actually required, therefore I wouldn't be telling others that it is required. I'd be pointing them in the direction of all the relevant regulations and telling them to interpret it for themselves.

The bit I do disagree on is hospitals and larger industrial installations being harder when there are several services passing through several buildings. I would argue that they are easier than say an office block or block of flats because the regs are clear about the requirements for bonding having to be met at each seperate building to all extraneous conductive parts whereas the regs are far from clear when it comes to a multiple occupancy building.

Commonsense combined with sound reasons, i would argue, make far more sense than any unclear requirements. But i would also argue that as far as i can see, it is a requirement to conduct main bonding in each dwelling of a multi occupancy building, and with good reason for doing so too.

There are far more regulations/requirements with regards to bonding certain medical and other services within a hospital complex it ain't just a matter of main bonding at one point on the system, of that i can assure you. So what does BS7671 actually say about the requirements of service pipework, that service as well as pass through several buildings??

 

[D Skelton]

Commonsense combined with sound reasons, i would argue, make far more sense than any unclear requirements.

For sure!

But i would also argue that as far as i can see, it is a requirement to conduct main bonding in each dwelling of a multi occupancy building, and with good reason for doing so too.

I wouldn't go that far, but I can definitely see where you're coming from

There are far more regulations/requirements with regards to bonding certain medical and other services within a hospital complex it ain't just a matter of main bonding at one point on the system, of that i can assure you. So what does BS7671 actually say about the requirements of service pipework, that service as well as pass through several buildings??

And that is exactly my point, the fact that there are clear requirements makes this easier. I am aware of many of the different requirements in other types of installation and most of that is down to clarity.

My main point being, the regs are clear when it comes to multiple buildings whether that be hospitals, campuses, farms or the garden shed, they aint so clear when it comes to multiple occupied spaces within one building.

 

[Engineer54]

For sure! The fella definitely knows his stuff! But on that one point, he's wrong, and unlike many others on that forum with their tongues up his a$$, I ain't afraid to say it!

Tut tut, who you been upsetting now?? If it's not our mates in the sun lounge it's others on another forum...lol!!

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Tut tut, who you been upsetting now?? If it's not our mates in the sun lounge it's others on another forum...lol!!

you trying to say pink handcuffs was Mr Skelton all along?...

 

[D Skelton]

Tut tut, who you been upsetting now?? If it's not our mates in the sun lounge it's others on another forum...lol!!

Ah just some fella who's so used to others licking his bum hole that he went all weird when some young sprog challenged him on his ridiculous opinion that Part P is all fine and dandy. He seems like a decent bloke, the thing is, he's like many over at the IET forums whereby when someone questions his opinion on a wider issue, he'd rather go into minute detail about irrelevant things really rather than sticking to the topic in hand.

I made a point that some years back I used a 2.5mm conductor on a 10A lighting circuit and my scam assessor reacted as if he'd never seen such a thing before, his response was along the lines of "the OSG is all you need for domestic applications and that 2.5mm on a lighting circuit regardless of any other factors is and always will be ridiculous".

The point I was trying to make is that a Electrical Trainee won't think outside the box because they're so used to following the 'wire by numbers' OSG.

Apparently I can't calculate a cable size properly???

I told him where to go.

 

[Engineer54]

his response was along the lines of "the OSG is all you need for domestic applications and that 2.5mm on a lighting circuit regardless of any other factors is and always will be ridiculous".

Oh dear, our projects specifications minimum size conductor for lighting final circuits is 2.5mm and 4mm for final circuit small power/socket outlets!! lol!! Been the same on most of the major projects i've worked on too....

 

[D Skelton]

Oh dear, our projects specifications minimum size conductor for lighting final circuits is 2.5mm and 4mm for final circuit small power/socket outlets!! lol!! Been the same on most of the major projects i've worked on too....

Exactly the same on many commercial projects I work on, just rare in a domestic. Still, that doesn't mean that 2.5mm will never need to be specced on a domestic!

The fact is, rather than sticking to the topic, he set out on a quest to try and somehow discredit me, and I was having none of it! The only reason I waded in on the topic (being someone who never posts on the IET forums for obvious reasons) was because his opening reply in the thread was accusing us five who attended parliament of misleading the MPs! The worst thing was that his flock of sheep huddled round him to bolster his argument even further rather than thinking for themselves!

I might have had time for the bloke if he hadn't initially called my integrity into question on a public forum!

Nothing annoys me more than someone who knows a lot thinking they know it all. I like to think in 20 years time when I know a lot that I will welcome a challenge of my knowledge and will be able to engage in a reasoned and polite debate without trying to sully someones name.

I'm always happy to eat humble pie if needs be, but I am sure as hell not wrong on this one!

 

[Engineer54]

I've just read the thread on IET, ...I can't believe the attitude of these so-called professionals towards electricians training. No wonder the electrical industries is on it's knees and in the state it's in. I've said it before and i'll say it again, the vast majority of these IET Engineers are outside of the building services industry and have little, if any interest in it or the those that work within the sector.

In my honest opinion, it's time to pass the Building Regulations (BS7671) over to CIBSE, who are a far more professional organisation all round, and far better suited to look after a standard that regulates building electrical installations. It's hard for me to say that, but i also know that if i had my time again, i would be with CIBSE, and Not the IET....

 

[D Skelton]

It's bad aint it!

I can't believe the attitude of these so called professionals towards a guy who's just trying to do his bit to defend their trade either! It's just one big old boys club full of know it all no marks and I've no time for it.

It's enough to make me wanna just give up hammering the scams Why bother when my own kind are accusing me of being untruthful and a $hit electrician!?

 

[Badged01]

......Why bother when my own kind are accusing me of being untruthful and a $hit electrician!?

Welcome to the world of politics, back stabbing and double dealing .......

 

[dab1]

I did my 17th edition course a couple of weeks ago, and I asked the question about extraneous metalwork. I asked about the 45K ohms rule although I thought it was 33k ohms. My understanding was, if its above 45/33kohms it is considered electrically separate and no need to bond. However I was told by the lecturer "forget the readings if it's metalwork entering the building which is also in contact with the ground it must be bonded"

 

[D Skelton]

I did my 17th edition course a couple of weeks ago, and I asked the question about extraneous metalwork. I asked about the 45K ohms rule although I thought it was 33k ohms. My understanding was, if its above 45/33kohms it is considered electrically separate and no need to bond. However I was told by the lecturer "forget the readings if it's metalwork entering the building which is also in contact with the ground it must be bonded"

Your lecturer was wrong.

 

[trev]

I did my 17th edition course a couple of weeks ago, and I asked the question about extraneous metalwork. I asked about the 45K ohms rule although I thought it was 33k ohms. My understanding was, if its above 45/33kohms it is considered electrically separate and no need to bond. However I was told by the lecturer "forget the readings if it's metalwork entering the building which is also in contact with the ground it must be bonded"

I'll go one further than Damian. Your lecturer is an idiot.

 

[Engineer54]

I did my 17th edition course a couple of weeks ago, and I asked the question about extraneous metalwork. I asked about the 45K ohms rule although I thought it was 33k ohms. My understanding was, if its above 45/33kohms it is considered electrically separate and no need to bond. However I was told by the lecturer "forget the readings if it's metalwork entering the building which is also in contact with the ground it must be bonded"

The fact of the matter is, that it will be highly unlikely that any metallic pipework or other metalwork coming out of the ground, and entering a properties electrical installations equipotential zone will have such a high value, and so will require main bonding as a matter of course...

So, giving the lecturer the benifit of doubt, this is probably what he meant, or at least what i hope he meant!! ..lol!!