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 31 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 7520 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

New EICR - "No earth bond to some socket boxes: C2"?

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
I have a new EICR which has the observation "No earth bond to some socket boxes: C2".


I have checked continuity between all faceplate mounting screws and the earth of the socket. They are all connected, i.e. the back box is at least earthed by the screw if not with a tail internally (I have not removed the front plates of any sockets). The earth of each socket is connected to the ring.


While it is best practice, is it a requirement of the regulations that a tail is connected internally?


many thanks



Parents
  • 0
    Alcomax:


    The NAPIT Codebreakers, much maligned by some people though a good reference.


     


    If you wonder why it is so maligned, consider the ramifications of applying the following [dis] logic

    c4c0d9fa88124a62cbd5b9f1844ead06-original-2020-10-03.jpg


    In the first instance, it is a ring, likely for sockets so 30mA RCD, but aside from that you have put an unnecessary obstacle to negotiate for any person wanting to then apply an alteration or addition to that circuit. Or is this a way of forcing a rewire of that circuit if anyone is considering altering or adding to it?






    Back when I did the 16th edition course we did a couple of calculations, when protected by a rewirable fuse it could an issue, when protected by a Type B MCB it may not be such an issue, the book recommends C3 without taking into account the protective device or any other factor, such as the presence of RCD protection which won’t actually reduce the fault current.


    The choice is C3, FI or no code. I err on the side of no code when protected by a MCB and a RCD, but C3 is reasonable, particularly if it is protected by a rewirable fuse without RCD protection.


    Andy B.


Reply
  • 0
    Alcomax:


    The NAPIT Codebreakers, much maligned by some people though a good reference.


     


    If you wonder why it is so maligned, consider the ramifications of applying the following [dis] logic

    c4c0d9fa88124a62cbd5b9f1844ead06-original-2020-10-03.jpg


    In the first instance, it is a ring, likely for sockets so 30mA RCD, but aside from that you have put an unnecessary obstacle to negotiate for any person wanting to then apply an alteration or addition to that circuit. Or is this a way of forcing a rewire of that circuit if anyone is considering altering or adding to it?






    Back when I did the 16th edition course we did a couple of calculations, when protected by a rewirable fuse it could an issue, when protected by a Type B MCB it may not be such an issue, the book recommends C3 without taking into account the protective device or any other factor, such as the presence of RCD protection which won’t actually reduce the fault current.


    The choice is C3, FI or no code. I err on the side of no code when protected by a MCB and a RCD, but C3 is reasonable, particularly if it is protected by a rewirable fuse without RCD protection.


    Andy B.


Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines