Discuss Advice on regulation 521.5.1 in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

It's actually quite a good thread paul.

Theres a bit of silliness and provoking language but it's not too bad and the main thing is everyone is actually contributing, unlike in the past where there would have been posts solely designed to cause offense.

Let's see if the music has helped :smile5:

Yes it is a good thread but it has been reported and we thought a bit of chill out music was the best option. Next time DW is picking the track :wink:
 
Yes it is a good thread but it has been reported and we thought a bit of chill out music was the best option. Next time DW is picking the track :wink:

You do realise I now have Nina Simone blaring out! The link lasts for 1 hour 15 minutes and 33 seconds!!
 
Last edited:
It's actually quite a good thread paul.

Theres a bit of silliness and provoking language but it's not too bad and the main thing is everyone is actually contributing, unlike in the past where there would have been posts solely designed to cause offense.

Let's see if the music has helped :smile5:


ps... Although as for whether the Main CPC should go through the same hole as the tails I'm far more confused than when I first read the reg!! I think I'll stick to what the reg says and have all three together, thus it avoids any problems with those eddies and complies with BS7671.

I agree with all this hhd, I must admit that until this thread I was unaware that the protective conductor of a circuit needs to enter with the live conductors. (I'm talking about a ferrous metal enclosure for any pedant out there)

As an aside, how much current and for how long would need to flow through a conductor for it to be a problem?
It seems to me that if a fault current flows for long enough and does not operate the ocpd then you have a bit more of a problem that a piece of metal getting warm.
 
Although as for whether the Main CPC should go through the same hole as the tails I'm far more confused than when I first read the reg!! I think I'll stick to what the reg says and have all three together, thus it avoids any problems with those eddies and complies with BS7671.

How is there any confusion? The Earthing Conductor is a protective conductor so the Regulation is clear and explicit.

I don't understand the confusion. A number of years ago I flagged up the issue during initial verification where the three phases and the neutral entered a switch fuse through one entry and the Earthing Conductor through another. The NICEIC Approved Contractor I was working for tried to tell me that I was wrong about protective conductors being subjected to the same rules as the live conductors but it is and always has been stated very clearly in the Regulations.
 
How is there any confusion? The Earthing Conductor is a protective conductor so the Regulation is clear and explicit.

I don't understand the confusion. A number of years ago I flagged up the issue during initial verification where the three phases and the neutral entered a switch fuse through one entry and the Earthing Conductor through another. The NICEIC Approved Contractor I was working for tried to tell me that I was wrong about protective conductors being subjected to the same rules as the live conductors but it is and always has been stated very clearly in the Regulations.

You're confused about the confusion and I'm confused about your confusion about the confusion! :confused:
 
As an aside, how much current and for how long would need to flow through a conductor for it to be a problem?
It seems to me that if a fault current flows for long enough and does not operate the ocpd then you have a bit more of a problem that a piece of metal getting warm.

Considering that fault currents can be in the thousands of amps it will probably take a fraction of a second for the eddy currents to become a problem. Don't forget current has more effects than just heating the conductor, the magnetic fields will cause mechanical stress at those levels.
 
Why spin?
it has always been acceptable, whilst ill advised to run a "separate" earth (cpc) alongside an SWA, as both the SWA & the "earth" must be capable of carrying the full fault current and suitably terminated to meet the requirements, so it is just a waste of money to do this.
So nothing has changed.
It is still stupid to waste money on a separate cpc, so why bother?

This is something we have always adhered to, but what regulation does it actually come from?
 
It doesn't come from any Regulation.
There is a requirement where high integrity earthing is required for both CPCs to be selected so that each satisfies the requirements for a CPC.
However there is nothing in standard circuits to prohibit the use of two conductors which will only satisfy the requirements for a CPC when combined.
 
Considering that fault currents can be in the thousands of amps it will probably take a fraction of a second for the eddy currents to become a problem. Don't forget current has more effects than just heating the conductor, the magnetic fields will cause mechanical stress at those levels.

Have to take your word for that Dave, it's a science that I know nothing.
I did a job a couple of weeks back where the lives to a three phase board were all taken into the board through their own neatly drilled 20mm hole. At the time each phase was drawing about 20a, there was no heat or sign of any damage. It had been like this for 20 years.
 
Thought I would invest in the latest copy of Guidance note 1, Selection & Erection. Curious, I looked up 'Ferromagnetic enclosures, cable entering; (521.5.1) All the conductors of a circuit should generally follow the same route. Live cables of the same circuit may cause overheating if they enter a ferromagnetic enclosure through different openings (page 97, 7.4)
 
Thought I would invest in the latest copy of Guidance note 1, Selection & Erection. Curious, I looked up 'Ferromagnetic enclosures, cable entering; (521.5.1) All the conductors of a circuit should generally follow the same route. Live cables of the same circuit may cause overheating if they enter a ferromagnetic enclosure through different openings (page 97, 7.4)
exactly what i was getting at, the earth is only live during fault conditions
 

Reply to Advice on regulation 521.5.1 in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Similar Threads

Hi all. I am installing some metal trunking vertically in a meter cupboard to contain all the meter tails for an apartment block. I have 5 sets...
Replies
1
Views
655
I’ve always been alright with the knockouts provided for Fusebox consumer units but I’ve got a job coming up where I don’t want to use the large...
Replies
24
Views
1K
Quick question. I want to put an isolating 2p switch on my incoming supply from the meter to the board. I want this to allow easier board changes...
Replies
8
Views
844
Hello all. So I am sure the expertise on this forum will be able to decode this very easily. But it has completely baffled me. I'm in training so...
Replies
14
Views
612
Hi I've inherited a very tight space, a KMF switch and some split-con for a sub-main to try and tidy up. It's a joyous non-restrained single...
Replies
3
Views
207

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock