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 21 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2953 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

Separate main bonding to outbuilding

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
Hi, I just wanted people’s thoughts on this please.

I have been to a job with a TN-S supply. A sub main feeds a separate building with an SWA, the armour being used as the CPC. I have calculated the armour has not the additional cross sectional area to used as the required main bonding. I understand from GN8 that the main bonding needs to be extended to the building as specified in size by BS7671. I realise that this main bond will run from the MET to the Earth marshalling terminal in the second building. My question is this:

The SWA is buried and cannot be dug up (well easily). There is a second duct that runs between the buildings which is empty, but it follows a different route to the SWA. I seem to remember reading that it is best to run a separate bonding cable in close proximity to the existing SWA, am I correct or did I dream this? Is it advisable not to run the additional cable via a different route? If so, my only option will be to TT the second building.


Thanks in advance.


KS
Parents
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Alcomax and Alanblaby, thanks for the reply. Just to clarify.
    Alcomax you said “but the armour as a CPC is sized for the largest requirement, be it as a CPC or main protective bonding, but it would accommodate both, at the same time, so to speak”.
    So in the case I am talking about the steel wire of the armour has sufficient cross sectional area to provide a low impedance for the protective device to disconnect in the required time. This has been confirmed by manual calculation, software and now measured.  The armour also has an equivalent cross copper cross sectional area for the required bonding.  The csa of the armour is not sufficient to fulfil both requirements if they are additive. My concern was that in GN8 figure 5.14 buildings B1 and B3 (which best represents my scenario) the narrative states:
     “Where a circuit protective conductor also acts as a bonding conductor the requirements for both functions will have to be met. In other words, as well as meeting the requirements of Regulation 543.1 for a circuit protective conductor (CPC), the requirements of Regulation 544.1.1 have to be met”
    Perhaps I am misinterpreting this but what I concluded this to mean is that enough steel armour is required to provide the CPC  and in addition an amount of steel armour must be available to provide the equivalent cross sectional area of copper required for the protective bonding.
    Using a hypothetical bonding and cpc example
    10mm2 of armour for CPC purposes, protective bonding requires 20mm2 of armour, total armour required would be 30mm2.
    So really the nub of the questions is the armour is doing two jobs, does it have to be a size to fulfil both as above (30mm^2) or does it require to be large enough to achieve the most onerous, 20mm2 in the example above.
    Hope that makes sense and thanks again.

    KS
Reply
  • Former Community Member
    0 Former Community Member
    Alcomax and Alanblaby, thanks for the reply. Just to clarify.
    Alcomax you said “but the armour as a CPC is sized for the largest requirement, be it as a CPC or main protective bonding, but it would accommodate both, at the same time, so to speak”.
    So in the case I am talking about the steel wire of the armour has sufficient cross sectional area to provide a low impedance for the protective device to disconnect in the required time. This has been confirmed by manual calculation, software and now measured.  The armour also has an equivalent cross copper cross sectional area for the required bonding.  The csa of the armour is not sufficient to fulfil both requirements if they are additive. My concern was that in GN8 figure 5.14 buildings B1 and B3 (which best represents my scenario) the narrative states:
     “Where a circuit protective conductor also acts as a bonding conductor the requirements for both functions will have to be met. In other words, as well as meeting the requirements of Regulation 543.1 for a circuit protective conductor (CPC), the requirements of Regulation 544.1.1 have to be met”
    Perhaps I am misinterpreting this but what I concluded this to mean is that enough steel armour is required to provide the CPC  and in addition an amount of steel armour must be available to provide the equivalent cross sectional area of copper required for the protective bonding.
    Using a hypothetical bonding and cpc example
    10mm2 of armour for CPC purposes, protective bonding requires 20mm2 of armour, total armour required would be 30mm2.
    So really the nub of the questions is the armour is doing two jobs, does it have to be a size to fulfil both as above (30mm^2) or does it require to be large enough to achieve the most onerous, 20mm2 in the example above.
    Hope that makes sense and thanks again.

    KS
Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines