Discuss Understanding minimum CPC requirements? in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

HappyHippyDad

-
Esteemed
Arms
Reaction score
5,578
My assessor said that the minimum CSA for a Main earthing conductor for a TT was 16mm. I questioned this as I thought it was 4mm.

Regulation 542.3.1 states every earthing conductor shall comply with section 543.

Section 543 refers mainly to the adiabatic (reg 543.1.3) or reg 543.1.4 (table 54.7), so if the CPC meets the adiabatic then its ok.

The on site guide even has a Table ( 4.4(ii) ) on page 41 (green copy) showing that 4mm is acceptable for a TT. I'm assuming this is from 543.1.1.

The assessors justification for the 16mm on a TT was that there is a diagram in OSG showing the CPC on a TT with 16mm written next to it (see page 16, fig 2.1(iii) - green OSG). Also the Electricians guide to the building regs - reprinted 2012 version (Table 3.3.2b - page 40) clearly shows that a 16mm CPC is required for a TT (assuming 25mm tails)??

How do you guys read the regs with regards minimum size CPC for a TT?

Also, just as an aside, why do we always have to have 16mm CPC for PME or TNS? If the regs say we can use EITHER reg 543.1.3 OR 543.1.4 why cant we just use the adiabatic (reg 543.1.3) and perhaps use a 6mm if it meets the reg?
 
The pictures in the OSG etc are supposed to represent a typical domestic or small commercial arrangement, they don’t set out the minimum cable sizes.
My first thought when someone says it must be x size because that’s whats in the on-site guide pictures is ‘what if it needs to be bigger than the picture shows?’

PME is a special case because of the bonding requirements and increased risks. The bonding and earthing conductor need to be large enough to cope with the theoretical situation where a bonded extraneous part has such a low resistance to true earth that a large proportion of the neutral current flows through it rather than through the combined neutral and earth of the service cable.
 
Yes assessor is partly correct, but it's never as simple as that.
If you can prove cross sectional area is acceptable with adiabatic equation then it's fine.

Also guidance states if the existing is 6 mm or greater it can stay as is, if less up grade to the full 16 mm.

I know your going to ask where is this guidance I am talking about. To be honest I cannot remember. When get home I will look it up and report back.

As for why it is 16 mm. No idea.
 
from the green osg.....

" for TT systems protected by an RCD with an earth electrode resistance > 1 ohm, EC size need not exceed 2.5mm if protected against corrosion by a sheath and also protected against mechanical damage "

seems clear to me.
 
16mm minimum if buried and sheathed but not mechanically protected.

542.3.1 states it must comply with section 543.

543 tells you what you can use as a protective conductor, how to preserve its continuity and as per sub section 543.1 how to size it, either by selection as per table 54.7 or by calculation using an adiabatic equation.

Assuming we're talking about a bog standard domestic TT here, 2.5mm is normally more than adequate so long as it's buried in some galv tube. Note the two key words there however; 'assuming' and 'normally'.
 
TT the earthing conductor often only serves the purpose of earthing the electrode, fault currents often find another path out.
 
Assuming we're talking about a bog standard domestic TT here, 2.5mm is normally more than adequate so long as it's buried in some galv tube. Note the two key words there however; 'assuming' and 'normally'.

I would nearly always upgrade to 16mm as it is good practice, but the few times I have done the adiabatic out of curiosity I agree with you Skelton, I often get results Between 1.3mm lowest and 2.9mm.
 
I would nearly always upgrade to 16mm as it is good practice, but the few times I have done the adiabatic out of curiosity I agree with you Skelton, I often get results Between 1.3mm lowest and 2.9mm.

Why is it good practice? And why would you say it is an upgrade?

Removing a cable which is a suitable size and replacing it with an oversized one doesn’t sound like an upgrade to me, more like unnecessary work.
 
When I had my assessment I was asked what the minimum size was for an earthing conductor (and no clarification on type of earthing was forthcoming) and the assessor was non plussed and confused when I said 2.5mm².
However this was the correct answer; as far as I am aware the absolute minimum permitted for an earthing conductor is 2.5mm². This would necessitate the conditions referred to above: A TT system where the earth rod current will not overload the conductor and the conductor is copper, mechanically protected and sheathed.
The discussion then went on to say that they wanted to encourage installers to use 16mm² in all cases as it was safer and accounted for changes that may be made to the installation, which, frankly, was utter rubbish.
 
When I had my assessment I was asked what the minimum size was for an earthing conductor (and no clarification on type of earthing was forthcoming) and the assessor was non plussed and confused when I said 2.5mm².
However this was the correct answer; as far as I am aware the absolute minimum permitted for an earthing conductor is 2.5mm². This would necessitate the conditions referred to above: A TT system where the earth rod current will not overload the conductor and the conductor is copper, mechanically protected and sheathed.
The discussion then went on to say that they wanted to encourage installers to use 16mm² in all cases as it was safer and accounted for changes that may be made to the installation, which, frankly, was utter rubbish.
How can they even push this rubbish out to contractors is beyond me.
Do they work to a different standard?
 
I'm listening to some nice music here (Alberto Guirioli) and reading post #16 just made me laugh with joy. Bless you Richard Burns :)
 
The discussion then went on to say that they wanted to encourage installers to use 16mm² in all cases as it was safer and accounted for changes that may be made to the installation, which, frankly, was utter rubbish.

This kind of one size fits all, paint by numbers, no thinking approach just can’t work for electrical installations.
It’s going to lead to customers being ripped off for unnecessary ‘upgrades’ and occasionally could lead to undersized protective conductors.
 
Was the assessor a Electrical Trainee type assessor, who could only look at diagrams and take
How can they even push this rubbish out to contractors is beyond me.
Do they work to a different standard?
As long as you don't question what they say, they will, get them to prove what they say, it may take some time but you may be surprised with the results, I'm waiting for all the Dumb's, Disagrees or whatever frankly say what you like I'm not bothered, far to long in the tooth to worry about peoples thoughts, until someone stands up to the BS they tell they will carry on taking your hard earned.
 

Reply to Understanding minimum CPC requirements? in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

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

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
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