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

Change to 544.1.1 - do protective conductors between buildings with extraneous-conductive-parts no longer need to be sized for main bonding?

544.1.1 now includes the sentence "Where an installation serves more than one building, a main protective bonding conductor shall be selected in accordance with the characteristics of the distribution circuit protective conductor for that particular building."  At the same time 411.3.1.2 has changed to suggest that bonding applies separately to each building.

So if I had an outbuilding with modest power requirements, could I just run say a 2.5mm² T&E - with just a 1.5mm² - to it, connect the outbuilding's earth terminal to that building's extraneous-conductive-parts using (min) 6mm² and be compliant? No need to size the c.p.c. between the main and outbuildings according to main bonding as we used to do.

That feels a bit dodgy to me - potentially connecting two distinct extraneous-conductive-parts with nothing but a thin c.p.c. - as not all services always enter the main building first and these days insulating repairs/alterations can readily isolate one building but not another from the street mains.

I realize none of this applies to PME systems - but there are plenty of TT installations (some still sharing metallic pipework with neighbouring installations) and a few proper TN-S ones around.

    - Andy.

Parents
  •  that it would be an unusual scenario.

    Of course, but it stands as just one example of range of possibilities - we've had decades of repairs and alterations to underground metallic pipework done using plastic so there must be numerous other examples of relatively similar situations out there.

    I guess my hope would be that the regulations describe what in principle what would produce a satisfactory installation, rather than a specific policy that only mostly works in practice or merely satisfies the 80/20 rule or somesuch.

    We could perhaps try some other numbers too - the outbuilding might not be 165m away (enough to get 2 Ohms out of a 1.5mm conductor at 12.1mΩ/m) - around here we're probably more modest and often have the garage just a footpath width away from the house - so say a 5m submain if the main CU happened to be close - so 0.06Ω might be more realistic. Also 50A feels a bit high to me - if we're looking for something that might prove satisfactory in the long term for a conductor in a cable shared with other possibly loaded conductors. The rating for a 1.5mm² in a cable with three loaded cores, method C, is 17.5A - so I could argue that twice that - say 35A might well be unsatisfactory in the long term. So V=IR then gives us just 2.1V - which doesn't feel quite so implausible.

        - Andy.

Reply
  •  that it would be an unusual scenario.

    Of course, but it stands as just one example of range of possibilities - we've had decades of repairs and alterations to underground metallic pipework done using plastic so there must be numerous other examples of relatively similar situations out there.

    I guess my hope would be that the regulations describe what in principle what would produce a satisfactory installation, rather than a specific policy that only mostly works in practice or merely satisfies the 80/20 rule or somesuch.

    We could perhaps try some other numbers too - the outbuilding might not be 165m away (enough to get 2 Ohms out of a 1.5mm conductor at 12.1mΩ/m) - around here we're probably more modest and often have the garage just a footpath width away from the house - so say a 5m submain if the main CU happened to be close - so 0.06Ω might be more realistic. Also 50A feels a bit high to me - if we're looking for something that might prove satisfactory in the long term for a conductor in a cable shared with other possibly loaded conductors. The rating for a 1.5mm² in a cable with three loaded cores, method C, is 17.5A - so I could argue that twice that - say 35A might well be unsatisfactory in the long term. So V=IR then gives us just 2.1V - which doesn't feel quite so implausible.

        - Andy.

Children
No Data