Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 22 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 4280 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

gas installation pipe bonding [again]

psychicwarrior
"My head is in a spin, my feet dont touch the ground..."  - I think I am just wanting to unload my head to the almighty interweb (at least it is not to that facebook thingy) and in that, it will heal. :)


A description: a gas meter is in its cupboard outside on the side of a house and the service pipe coming out of the ground to it, at this stage, I am assuming to be conductive (or not plastic). The bare copper installation pipe from the meter, comes out of the top of the cupboard, goes  up the wall and around the outside of the house (at a touchable height) to the opposite side, a run of about 12 metres, where it enters the building though the wall and attaches to the boiler.  I am told this is quite common.


As an aside, for now, the visiting gas engineer said to the property owners, that because of how it is run, he wanted to see some bonding connected inside the meter cupboard on the installation pipe side , not elsewhere, or it would get a notice. *


What I am curious about is the approach to running an accessible [and conductive] pipe aroung the outside of a house (rather than getting it inside immediately) and bonded to the MET when there could be a fault on the installation.  It must be in the similar vein as  a small 'class one' light fitting being installed on the wall outside, that this is seen as an allowable potential shock risk even when it would be accessible for such a distance as it were when 'lively' ?   Or am I over-thinking this, or just getting it all wrong (as is my wont) with a "there is no issue here actually".


Regards

Habs


* I am starting to dislike use of some partial plastic pipe alterations in properties.  Keeping it brief as this is just part of the 'aside' comments: there are plastic sections a little after the copper 'out/return' pipes on the boiler which disappear into the house structure to goodness knows where.  Something else, or the copper pipe still visible elsewhere servicing radiators and so forth, seems to be keeping those parts extraneous. With a lot of pipe 'buried', it is quite tricky to spot whats going on.   As it happens, there is a MEB cable clamped to a copper pipe feeding a radiator on an internal wall, which then runs through the wall to the  MET on the other side.  This would seem to be doing its job for all the extaneous parts (gas and water connected) when assessing with it connected/disconnected. The connection is not in the ideal position, open to risks of being disconnected from more [future] alterations but it is working and perhaps the previous sparks decided this was the best to be done in the circumstances.  Its a bonding conundrum to find a good solution - if only it were all plastic, or still all copper...ho hum.
Parents
  • 0
    ...Provided things are correctly bonded at 'point of entry' (which might be better thought of as point of entry of a potential that makes the part extraneous, rather than entry of the gas.fluid inside the pipe)  - then insulating section aren't an issue. If a pipe is separated from the bonding by an insulating section then it's also separated from the thing than requires it to be bonded in the first place - so it all comes out in the wash.


       - Andy.

     




    The part that gets separated from the bonding by a plastic insert could, by going into, though or in contact with earth under the floor, still be extraneous part in the zone ?  What to do if that (as rare as it may be) happens - bond those sections as it appears to have happened from some previous works (MEB from rad pipe to MET I mentioned).


    I can see the plastic inserted sections (and some flexi pipe !), a few metres after internal pipes leave the boiler (not the gas supply coming into the boiler from outside that I mentioned), as they disappear into a void through a wall and under the floors (cant inspect from there on as the under floor voids are inaccessible in that area). There is no plastic re-appearing at rads, sinks etc, it is copper rising and it is presenting as extraneous still, so somewhere something else is going on and might explain why previously a MEB was added at that rad pipe.  I know it is not at entry point, but if that entry point


    I am going to go back and have another poke around and recheck to get a 'better' understanding. I'm wondering if I've mistaken or not spotted another entry point or something; possible !


    It all would help if folks left records when [significant] alterations take place.  :)



    Thanks all, for the responses.

Reply
  • 0
    ...Provided things are correctly bonded at 'point of entry' (which might be better thought of as point of entry of a potential that makes the part extraneous, rather than entry of the gas.fluid inside the pipe)  - then insulating section aren't an issue. If a pipe is separated from the bonding by an insulating section then it's also separated from the thing than requires it to be bonded in the first place - so it all comes out in the wash.


       - Andy.

     




    The part that gets separated from the bonding by a plastic insert could, by going into, though or in contact with earth under the floor, still be extraneous part in the zone ?  What to do if that (as rare as it may be) happens - bond those sections as it appears to have happened from some previous works (MEB from rad pipe to MET I mentioned).


    I can see the plastic inserted sections (and some flexi pipe !), a few metres after internal pipes leave the boiler (not the gas supply coming into the boiler from outside that I mentioned), as they disappear into a void through a wall and under the floors (cant inspect from there on as the under floor voids are inaccessible in that area). There is no plastic re-appearing at rads, sinks etc, it is copper rising and it is presenting as extraneous still, so somewhere something else is going on and might explain why previously a MEB was added at that rad pipe.  I know it is not at entry point, but if that entry point


    I am going to go back and have another poke around and recheck to get a 'better' understanding. I'm wondering if I've mistaken or not spotted another entry point or something; possible !


    It all would help if folks left records when [significant] alterations take place.  :)



    Thanks all, for the responses.

Children
No Data

Join us to get the best from IET EngX.

Joining EngX lets you personalise your experience so you stay up to date on the topics that interest you, plus you’ll be able to make connections who are looking to collaborate, exchange ideas and more.

Join us Not now

Community Rules & Guidelines