Sup bonding code for property with no rcd

[chrisreid186]

What code would you give when doing EICR for a property that has no supplementary bonding in a bathroom, there is no RCD on any circuit but zs and insulation tests are good,

Is it acceptable to measure the resistance between the shower and pipework, if it's under 0.05 ohm's take it as bonded, incase the bonding had been done but covered up?

 

[Nigel]

Actually a very good question.

I would say if everything else tests fine - C3

If all electrical items were Class 2 - C3

If there are Class 1 electrical items then potentially C2.

 

[Deleted account]

I Would and have C2 'd a room containing a bath or shower that has no suplimentary bonding and does not have rcd protection if there is an electric shower.

However I do like essex's take and would consider If it has no electric shower and no class 1 electrical fittings I think I would C3 it in future.

 

[chrisreid186]

Bathroom has an electric shower, so hoping I can bond from CPC to pipe inside the shower, and that the shower pipe is accessible under bath and use that to bond hot and cold bath taps then take across to sink, also bond from shower isolator pull cord to light pull cord which will intern bond light fitting,

maybe easier to install an RCD

 

[Nigel]

Bathroom has an electric shower, so hoping I can bond from CPC to pipe inside the shower, and that the shower pipe is accessible under bath and use that to bond hot and cold bath taps then take across to sink, also bond from shower isolator pull cord to light pull cord which will intern bond light fitting,

maybe easier to install an RCD

You may want to think again. If the shower is plastic then what are you hoping to gain from cross-bonding the CPC to the pipe work?

Are the lights, pull cords, isolator also metallic? If not again, what do you hope to gain from cross-bonding to these?

 

[chrisreid186]

I see what you mean as no exposed conductive parts on shower or pull cords

my idea was to avoid running a cable from the floor to ceiling and that cross bonding the CPC's in pull cords would help lower the resistance between them, now thinking code 3 would be adiquet

 

[ipf]

You may want to think again. If the shower is plastic then what are you hoping to gain from cross-bonding the CPC to the pipe work?

Are the lights, pull cords, isolator also metallic? If not again, what do you hope to gain from cross-bonding to these?

Oh yes! let's all go back to the good old 15th Edition.
If he wants to bond the rads, I'm sure I still have the odd one of those special earth bond clips for 'em.

 

[Pauls0212]

Jesus ... just test it and put the appropriate code... its not rocket science... why c3 if its ok

 

[Pauls0212]

Tin hat on now

 

[ipf]

Jesus ... just test it and put the appropriate code... its not rocket science... why c3 if its ok

You called?

 

[Pete999]

What code would you give when doing EICR for a property that has no supplementary bonding in a bathroom, there is no RCD on any circuit but zs and insulation tests are good,

Is it acceptable to measure the resistance between the shower and pipework, if it's under 0.05 ohm's take it as bonded, incase the bonding had been done but covered up?

 

[Ian1981]

Even if the pipework is all plastic, all circuits serving the location are required to have supplementary bonding between them , whether of class 1 or class 11 construction if no rcd is present to the circuits serving the location.
See gn7 and gn8 for examples of such a set up

 

[Nigel]

Even if the pipework is all plastic, all circuits serving the location are required to have supplementary bonding between them , whether of class 1 or class 11 construction if no rcd is present to the circuits serving the location.
See gn7 and gn8 for examples of such a set up

701.415.2 clearly states only ‘extreneous-conductive parts’ and ‘metallic pipes’ are to be supplymentary bonded.

 

[Pete999]

Even if the pipework is all plastic, all circuits serving the location are required to have supplementary bonding between them , whether of class 1 or class 11 construction if no rcd is present to the circuits serving the location.
See gn7 and gn8 for examples of such a set up

From an interest point of view Ian do you have a Regulation number to clarify this statement? I don't have any GNs.

 

[Ian1981]

From an interest point of view Ian do you have a Regulation number to clarify this statement? I don't have any GNs.

701.415.2 clearly states only ‘extreneous-conductive parts’ and ‘metallic pipes’ are to be supplymentary bonded.

tell the IET they are wrong then

 

[Ian1981]

From an interest point of view Ian do you have a Regulation number to clarify this statement? I don't have any GNs.

701.415.2 clearly states only ‘extreneous-conductive parts’ and ‘metallic pipes’ are to be supplymentary bonded.

tell the IET they are wrong then
View attachment 45929 View attachment 45930

 

[Ian1981]

From an interest point of view Ian do you have a Regulation number to clarify this statement? I don't have any GNs.

701.415.2 clearly states only ‘extreneous-conductive parts’ and ‘metallic pipes’ are to be supplymentary bonded.

tell the IET they are wrong then
View attachment 45929 View attachment 45930

 

[Ian1981]

If rcd protection is not present then you still need to ensure that any touch voltages between circuits is at a minimum under fault conditions by supplementary bonding the circuits in the location

 

[Nigel]

If rcd protection is not present then you still need to ensure that any touch voltages between circuits is at a minimum under fault conditions by supplementary bonding the circuits in the location

What touch voltages would you expect between a metallic light and a plastic pipe?

 

[Nigel]

tell the IET they are wrong then
View attachment 45929 View attachment 45930

No need. They agree with my earlier post.

 

[Ian1981]

What touch voltages would you expect between a metallic light and a plastic pipe?

Why do you think we need to ensure that everything is at the same potential in the location regardless of metallic pipes or class 1 or 11 equipment installed without an rcd?
Shouldn’t need spelling out

 

[Nigel]

Why do you think we need to ensure that everything is at the same potential in the location regardless of metallic pipes or class 1 or 11 equipment installed without an rcd?
Shouldn’t need spelling out

Ok you have dodged my question but I will be polite and answer yours.

Only exposed-conductive parts and extraneous-conductive parts have the ability to be at different potentials. So it is physically and scientifically impossible to make two parts that are plastic the same potential.

I understand why the pretty pictures have led you up the garden path but you need to read the text and then reference all that back to BS 7671.

415.2.2 which is the Regulation that is referenced in your pictures states:

"The resistance R between simultaneously accessible exposed-conductive parts and extraneous-conductive parts shall fulfil the following condition:"

It then goes on to give the formula for touch voltage. I have highlighted and underlined the important part of the Regulation for you.

Furthermore Regulation 701.415.2 states:

"Local supplementary protective bonding according to Regulation 415.2 shall be established connecting together the terminals of the protective conductor of each circuit supplying Class 1 and Class 2 equipment to the accessible extraneous-conductive parts, within a room containing a bath or shower....."

So when you have Class 2 equipment and plastic pipes etc how do you currently do your supplementary bonding and how do you justify it is required in BS 7671????

 

[Ian1981]

I have not dodged any question as your question is quite frankly ridiculous .

Not once have I said that you need to bond any plastic pipes.

You are bonding the circuits and their respective cpc’s in the location eg a shower and a lighting circuit so that they will be at the same potential during fault conditions.

Being a wet environment and the possibility of a lower resistance regarding the human body they is always an increased risk regarding electric shock.
Obviously if extraneous parts exist then they are too connected to the localised supplementary bonding.

By your comments if everything is plastic and class 11 equipment fitted then why bother with bonding and rcds?
They will always be that risk in which is why we provide supplementary bonding to the location or rather we did before the 3 conditions of omission by an rcd made it obsolete.

 

[Nigel]

I have not dodged any question as your question is quite frankly ridiculous .

Not once have I said that you need to bond any plastic pipes.

You are bonding the circuits and their respective cpc’s in the location eg a shower and a lighting circuit so that they will be at the same potential during fault conditions.

Being a wet environment and the possibility of a lower resistance regarding the human body they is always an increased risk regarding electric shock.
Obviously if extraneous parts exist then they are too connected to the localised supplementary bonding.

By your comments if everything is plastic and class 11 equipment fitted then why bother with bonding and rcds?
They will always be that risk in which is why we provide supplementary bonding to the location or rather we did before the 3 conditions of omission by an rcd made it obsolete.

Ok. To help me better understand what Reg number do you quote when a plastic light is not supplymentary bonded to a plastic shower?

 

[Ian1981]

Why’ve does the fact that there’s no extraneous parts make a difference?
If metallic pipes are present then they should be bonded to say the main protective bonding conductor for the water service.
So why do we bother supplementary bonding pipes to the cpc of any circuit in the bathroom?

All that is different is that the extraneous pipework is taken out of the equation.
The need to bond all circuits in the location still stands.
If there’s say just a lighting circuit then yes there’s no need for supplementary bonding if pipework is plastic.

As when there’s metallic pipes and more than one circuit in the bathroom we don’t just take a bonding conductor from the lighting circuit and ignore the other circuits in the location.

The regulation I would give is the one regarding the need for supplementary bonding conductors to be applied in a bathroom when the requirements for omission by an rcd is not applicable

 

[Nigel]

Why’ve does the fact that there’s no extraneous parts make a difference?
If metallic pipes are present then they should be bonded to say the main protective bonding conductor for the water service.
So why do we bother supplementary bonding pipes to the cpc of any circuit in the bathroom?

All that is different is that the extraneous pipework is taken out of the equation.
The need to bond all circuits in the location still stands.
If there’s say just a lighting circuit then yes there’s no need for supplementary bonding if pipework is plastic.

As when there’s metallic pipes and more than one circuit in the bathroom we don’t just take a bonding conductor from the lighting circuit and ignore the other circuits in the location.

The regulation I would give is the one regarding the need for supplementary bonding conductors to be applied in a bathroom when the requirements for omission by an rcd is not applicable

Which one? Can you supply the specific Reg that backs up your view because I cannot find one.

 

[Ian1981]

Again this time taken from gn7 rather than gn8
Regulation 701.415.2
Supplementary equipotential bonding according to reg 415.2 shall be established connecting together terminals of the protective conductor of EACH CIRCUIT supplying class 1 and class 11 to accessible extraneous parts.
Obviously if they are no extraneous parts then only the first part applies.
Amazing how gn7 and gn8 advise the same thing regarding plastic pipe installations and supplementary bondin in a bathroom.

Until the iet come out and say our guidance given in the guidance notes is incorrect then then i will not be changing my views and why would I?

 

[Nigel]

I think you need to learn how the English language works.

I thought I had seen it all on forums but supplementary bonding plastic is one of the best things I have ever read.

 

[Ian1981]

I think you need to learn how the English language works.

I thought I had seen it all on forums but supplementary bonding plastic is one of the best things I have ever read.

You are supplementary bonding the circuits in the location not plastic!
I think it is you who can’t grasp English tho ,as I’ve observed on your posts you just basically troll on here anyway

 

[Nigel]

You are supplementary bonding the circuits in the location not plastic!
I think it is you who can’t grasp English tho ,as I’ve observed on your posts you just basically troll on here anyway

Oh come on - play the ball not the player. A common tactic to use when someone is loosing the argument.

So the paragraph that states that supplementary bonding can be done outside the room who do you do that?

 

[Ian1981]

I’m not loosing anything nor is this a debate where it has a looser in it, that is obviously how you view the world I take it?

Regarding outside the room would concern bonding of any pipework that meets the definition of an extraneous conductive part, that serves the location and is made in close proximity to the bathroom.

It’s obviously going nowhere apart from pointless insults started by you so perhaps it’s you who is ‘loosing ‘I’m not budging and neither are you so best leave it there.

 

[Rpa07]

Shall I hijack this tread with talk about lambs tails or would that be juvenile?