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

Bonding to single building with 2 TNCS supplies

Hi,

I'm sure this has been answered before - but we've just been carrying out an EICR on a small commercial building that has a 100A 3 Ph TNCS Supply to the basement & separate 100A 3Ph TNCS supply to the ground floor. We believe it used to be to separate tenancies & has since been occupied by a single tenant. The installation has a single incoming water supply to the basement that is bonded to the basement MET, However there is no bonding from the ground floor MET onto the same water supply. 

I assume it's a simple fix of adding a 10mm from the ground floor - but just wanted to see what other views are in case i'm missing something obvious. 

Not that I believe it makes too much difference, but we believe the supplies to be fed via separate TXs as the client has mentioned one supply has stayed live whilst the other has not during a power cut. 

Thanks in advance!
Parents
  • gibb01:

    Is there no issue from a DNO perspective of joining the METs or is that generally accepted practice in this situation? It's not something I've come across before.

     


    There may be, but more importantly BS 7671 also acknowledges the problem, in Regulation 542.1.3.3

     



    542.1.3.3 Where a number of installations have separate earthing arrangements, any protective conductors common to any of these installations shall either be capable of carrying the maximum fault current likely to flow through them or be earthed within one installation only and insulated from the earthing arrangements of any other installation. In the latter circumstances, if the protective conductor forms part of a cable, the protective conductor shall be earthed only in the installation containing the associated protective device.





    How will you rate the conductor bonding the two installations together? Can you be sure they come from the same main in the street (they probably do, but ...)?


    One thing to note, you don't state whether the two installations are totally separate, or whether they share any space in the building in common. But I guess it's the case that someone could run an extension lead from one part of the building to another. If either of those is the case, and there is a risk that exposed-conductive-parts supplied from both installations could be touched simultaneously, then it does need addressing, as one of the basic rules for fault protection as part of automatic disconnection of supply is not met (Regulation 411.3.1.1, particularly my highlight below):



    411.3 Requirements for fault protection
    411.3.1 Protective earthing and protective equipotential bonding

    411.3.1.1 Protective earthing


    Exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to a protective conductor under the specific conditions for each type of system earthing as specified in Regulations 411.4 to 411.6.
    Simultaneously accessible exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to the same earthing system individually, in groups or collectively.

    Conductors for protective earthing shall comply with Chapter 54.

    A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a lampholder having no exposed-conductive-parts and suspended from such a point.


Reply
  • gibb01:

    Is there no issue from a DNO perspective of joining the METs or is that generally accepted practice in this situation? It's not something I've come across before.

     


    There may be, but more importantly BS 7671 also acknowledges the problem, in Regulation 542.1.3.3

     



    542.1.3.3 Where a number of installations have separate earthing arrangements, any protective conductors common to any of these installations shall either be capable of carrying the maximum fault current likely to flow through them or be earthed within one installation only and insulated from the earthing arrangements of any other installation. In the latter circumstances, if the protective conductor forms part of a cable, the protective conductor shall be earthed only in the installation containing the associated protective device.





    How will you rate the conductor bonding the two installations together? Can you be sure they come from the same main in the street (they probably do, but ...)?


    One thing to note, you don't state whether the two installations are totally separate, or whether they share any space in the building in common. But I guess it's the case that someone could run an extension lead from one part of the building to another. If either of those is the case, and there is a risk that exposed-conductive-parts supplied from both installations could be touched simultaneously, then it does need addressing, as one of the basic rules for fault protection as part of automatic disconnection of supply is not met (Regulation 411.3.1.1, particularly my highlight below):



    411.3 Requirements for fault protection
    411.3.1 Protective earthing and protective equipotential bonding

    411.3.1.1 Protective earthing


    Exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to a protective conductor under the specific conditions for each type of system earthing as specified in Regulations 411.4 to 411.6.
    Simultaneously accessible exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to the same earthing system individually, in groups or collectively.

    Conductors for protective earthing shall comply with Chapter 54.

    A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a lampholder having no exposed-conductive-parts and suspended from such a point.


Children
No Data