This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

TT Earthing Systems - Interest by New Zealand

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
I am the chair of a Standards NZ committee charged with the production of a technical report to the NZ regulator regarding the possible use of the TT earthing system in NZ.   Currently, NZ uses the MEN earthing system (as does Australia), being similar to the PME earthing system used in the UK but with an earth electrode being required in each electrical installation to assist in keeping the voltage to earth of the neutral conductor of the LV reticulation close to zero.   Otherwise the MEN system is TN-C-S and relies on the PEN conductor as a return path to clear earth faults by the operation of OCPDs.   The use of RCDs is now required for most sub-circuits to provide additional shock protection.  


As is well known, TN systems are not perfect and a broken or high impedance PEN conductor causes the livening of earthed and bonded surfaces, including the chassis of EVs when they are plugged in to EV charging equipment.   It is noted that the IET Wiring Rules do not permit the use of PME systems to supply EV charging equipment unless the voltage on earthed surfaces is held to a non-lethal value.  
 


Without going into further detail, the committee, in preparing a report, remains concerned about and seeks information on two possible problems.   


The first is how to attain at reasonable cost a TT earthing electrode system that does not exceed 100 ohms to earth in many NZ locations where the soil resistivity and the seasonal variation of this is high.   Does it cost a fortune to do this in the UK?    We have difficulty at many sites in reducing substation earthing mat and rod systems to less than 10 ohms and sometimes that is not achievable.




The second is how to be reasonably sure that the RCDs in any TT installation will be regularly tested every six months or so by the users of the installation?  RCDs are not perfect but are much more important safety devices when used in a TT installation than in a TN installation.   Therefore regular testing appears to be important to maintain safety.    With non-domestic installations this should not be a problem as their regular testing (by pushbutton) can be linked to annual building inspections or included in maintenance schedules.  However, how does the UK ensure - if it does - that the occupants of domestic TT installations regularly check the operation of their RCDs?   One sensible suggestion made by a committee member was that the regular RCD checking could be linked to the six-monthly call by our Fire and Emergency Service to check the batteries in fire alarms installed in houses.   That might prompt a few people to check their RCDs.    


 


Since I was intending to ask about the practicability of 100 ohm earth electrode systems in the UK, I thought that I should also enquire about the regular testing of RCDs in domestic installations.  


I should be grateful for any comments or suggestions.

 

P M R Browne BE(Elect) FIET FENZ

Parents
  • The advice is indeed to place electrodes 1 to 2 electrode lengths apart, but this is only advice, and sometimes the choice of location is cramped, or maybe the installer is in a hurry and having a bad day - if the reading is low enough it may not really matter.

    There is a general recommendation that all fixed wiring is re-inspected at an interval initially specified by the original installer, though that interval is then often varied by the most recent inspection. Typically that may be re-inspect after five years or ten, with shorter times for sites with a lot of exposed wiring outdoors (catenary supplies to outbuildings etc) and TT supplies with earth rods, or other site specific factors that increase the risk of deterioration or damage - being near the sea greatly increases the risk of salt water induced corrosion for example. The regulations do not make a distinction between a visual inspection example forms and a full 'instruments out' job example form, even though NICIEC (a large trade body) do, but clearly if the intention is to only walk around look for damage to cables or enclosures or evidence of damp or corrosion, then this is a less onerous task. An 'full' inspection may sample a small fraction of equipment on the site, or require  total dismantling, rather depending how it looks, and previous reports being available.




    At the cheaper end of the market, especially domestic, like the RCD tests, the advice on regular inspection is routinely stretched or just ignored, in preference to calling someone out only after there is a problem, but more up-market customers and businesses with valuable livestock to lose etc,  take it very seriously indeed, not least because their insurance company tells them to do so.Again , at the lower end of the market some of the cheaper (so called 'drive by' ) inspections (not looking in lofts, not verifying insulation resistance, not looking at Zs etc) are of little benefit except perhaps as a liability transfer exercise, as it is all so fast that very little is actually inspected.
Reply
  • The advice is indeed to place electrodes 1 to 2 electrode lengths apart, but this is only advice, and sometimes the choice of location is cramped, or maybe the installer is in a hurry and having a bad day - if the reading is low enough it may not really matter.

    There is a general recommendation that all fixed wiring is re-inspected at an interval initially specified by the original installer, though that interval is then often varied by the most recent inspection. Typically that may be re-inspect after five years or ten, with shorter times for sites with a lot of exposed wiring outdoors (catenary supplies to outbuildings etc) and TT supplies with earth rods, or other site specific factors that increase the risk of deterioration or damage - being near the sea greatly increases the risk of salt water induced corrosion for example. The regulations do not make a distinction between a visual inspection example forms and a full 'instruments out' job example form, even though NICIEC (a large trade body) do, but clearly if the intention is to only walk around look for damage to cables or enclosures or evidence of damp or corrosion, then this is a less onerous task. An 'full' inspection may sample a small fraction of equipment on the site, or require  total dismantling, rather depending how it looks, and previous reports being available.




    At the cheaper end of the market, especially domestic, like the RCD tests, the advice on regular inspection is routinely stretched or just ignored, in preference to calling someone out only after there is a problem, but more up-market customers and businesses with valuable livestock to lose etc,  take it very seriously indeed, not least because their insurance company tells them to do so.Again , at the lower end of the market some of the cheaper (so called 'drive by' ) inspections (not looking in lofts, not verifying insulation resistance, not looking at Zs etc) are of little benefit except perhaps as a liability transfer exercise, as it is all so fast that very little is actually inspected.
Children
No Data