mapj1:
TT and the other TN if they are neither separated nor tightly tied together such as second supplies for certain type of fire system)
Then the HV side - are these underground lines bringing in an HV earth on the armour with them and if not how are the HV earths arranged. Presumably they are supplied by the same DNO, but are they private transformers, or if they are DNO property do they have an opinion as to how they are wired and how they should be interconnected or not . I presume they are not side by side on a common ground plane.
Hi.
Interesting that you mention TN + a TT supply, this has been suggested to me by IDNOs before, however, without any technical justification. Is this approach due to the idea that the two earths (star points) will become disconnected somehow, so it's better to design it that way in the first place? Just TT means an RCD and that is rather counter to the purpose of many secondary supplies.
As for how the HV is earthed, presuming its a cold site, I don't see the issue as long as the HV lines do not extend further into the building than the transformer room. What am I missing?
Thanks
Dutch of the Elm:mapj1:
TT and the other TN if they are neither separated nor tightly tied together such as second supplies for certain type of fire system)
Then the HV side - are these underground lines bringing in an HV earth on the armour with them and if not how are the HV earths arranged. Presumably they are supplied by the same DNO, but are they private transformers, or if they are DNO property do they have an opinion as to how they are wired and how they should be interconnected or not . I presume they are not side by side on a common ground plane.Hi.
Interesting that you mention TN + a TT supply, this has been suggested to me by IDNOs before, however, without any technical justification. Is this approach due to the idea that the two earths (star points) will become disconnected somehow, so it's better to design it that way in the first place? Just TT means an RCD and that is rather counter to the purpose of many secondary supplies.
Guessing in this case the supplies are at LV. The issue for DNO/IDNO is circulating currents, if they make two N-E bonds (as mapj1 pointed out). Also from their perspective, of course they need to make it so one supply cable can be worked on if the other is live.
From the installation perspective, don't forget, if you have two supplies serving the same location(s), you need to be careful to comply with Regulation 411.3.1.1 - especially second para:
Simultaneously accessible exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to the same earthing system individually, in groups or collectively.
So if you have two supplies, you must either segregate them physically at all points (even if exposed-conductive-parts are shared), or bond them together ... but see Reg 542.1.3.3.
mapj1:
Not wishing to second guess the IDNOs, but a building with two TNC-S LV supplies is one of those things that needs to be done carefully ?
Because in effect you have two NE bonds, and two lots of bonding that put the neutral onto the structural steel, plumbing etc, when those neutrals join up round the back via a common low impedance street network ground / DNO neutral / HV ground there is potential to have a constant load dependent voltage gradient along the building. This is similar to the metal water main serving as a second PEN in a street of houses, but with less impedance to limit the current. Even though the voltages may be fractions of a volt the currents may be tens or in an unlucky case, hundreds of amps, with all the associated magnetic fields and this is 'a complication' , and is is either avoided by tying both together very solidly - easy if side by side, less so at opposite ends of a barn, or more easily using the electrode resistance in a TT system is to reduce the potential for large circulating currents.
In the end the folk who know the network details should be the DNO, but things like building change of use of a building that was separate modules into one big one, or the addition of factory piping running between previously isolated buildings can introduce problems where there originally were none.
Why is bonding them together hard if the supplies are not adjacent (but still local to the same building)? Is this not just the case of a large section bonding conductor between them, and making sure they stay bonded? Maintaining bonding throughout is already an important safety aspect, so I don't see why we should assume this would not be done.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site