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

Extraneous conductive parts

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Hello,


Thinking about a domestic dwelling with main bonding to incoming water and gas pipes (even though most are plastic nowadays); all the electrical circuits within the dwelling are protected by RCDs; the only extraneous conductive parts to the bathroom being copper water pipes and copper central heating pipes... Why would the copper pipes need to be main bonded one to another close to the bathroom (in an accessible place for testing, like in an airing cupboard)?


Designing an installation which uses the cold water pipe in place of a main bonding cable (having a cross-sectional area which is greater, after all), why would any of the other three pipes need to be main bonded to that cold water pipe, when all of the pipes connect at the boiler any how?! Yes, if you were to cut all of the pipes and to replace them with plastic pipes then you risk introducing an electrical potential into the bathroom should a fault occur, but wouldn’t anyone doing that plumbing be obliged to consider this risk at that time? 


Otherwise, there is no point considering the use of copper pipes to replace main bonding cables. In which case, it would be necessary to bond the pipes one to another just outside the bathroom and run the cable all of the way back to the consumer unit.


I must excuse myself for being indolent and not referring directly to the wiring regulations, which is from where these ideas stem.
Parents
  • Obviously in my diagram the circuit protective conductor (earth wire) in the cable supplying the faulty immersion heater should have stopped the cylinder, pipes and tap becoming live

    Even with an intact c.p.c. the immersion circuit (or any of many other circuits outside the bathroom) could still pose a hazard to the bathroom as it's disconnection times were longer than 0.4s - and existing installations correctly done to earlier editions of the regulations could have up to 5s disconnection times for a wide variety of circuits.


     
    the touch voltage during a fault is reduced to a maximum of 50 Volts

    Technically the 50V condition need only be met when the fault current is only sufficient to achieve a 5s disconnection time - higher fault currents may result in more than 50V. But meeting the 5s/50V requirement with normal overcurrent protective devices keeps you below the 'curve' that (trading increasing voltage with decreasing disconnection times) ensures reasonabe safety from fatal electric shock. If you continued along the same curve you should arrive at the 0.4s/115V point.


       - Andy.
Reply
  • Obviously in my diagram the circuit protective conductor (earth wire) in the cable supplying the faulty immersion heater should have stopped the cylinder, pipes and tap becoming live

    Even with an intact c.p.c. the immersion circuit (or any of many other circuits outside the bathroom) could still pose a hazard to the bathroom as it's disconnection times were longer than 0.4s - and existing installations correctly done to earlier editions of the regulations could have up to 5s disconnection times for a wide variety of circuits.


     
    the touch voltage during a fault is reduced to a maximum of 50 Volts

    Technically the 50V condition need only be met when the fault current is only sufficient to achieve a 5s disconnection time - higher fault currents may result in more than 50V. But meeting the 5s/50V requirement with normal overcurrent protective devices keeps you below the 'curve' that (trading increasing voltage with decreasing disconnection times) ensures reasonabe safety from fatal electric shock. If you continued along the same curve you should arrive at the 0.4s/115V point.


       - Andy.
Children
No Data