I've just seen this article in E&T highlighting the increased incidence of reported broken PEN's from 57 in 2003 to 474 in 2021. It seems they are becoming less of a rare event.
David
I've just seen this article in E&T highlighting the increased incidence of reported broken PEN's from 57 in 2003 to 474 in 2021. It seems they are becoming less of a rare event.
David
"it is recommended that an additional connection to earth, by means of an earth electrode ..............."
Yes?
That might be useful for preventing normal earth leakage currents raising the installation's metalwork to a hazardous voltage if the means of Earthing the installation is lost entirely (e.g. break in PE, but not N), but I can't see it being a sensible mitigation to a broken PEN in general. Generally you'd need to achieve something like Ra * I < 50V - where I is the installation's load - to have any sensible effect - so fine where the installation draws less than an amp (single street lights for example) - but even for a modest domestic installation Ra would have to implausibly low to have any sensible effect.
- Andy.
"it is recommended that an additional connection to earth, by means of an earth electrode ..............."
Yes?
That might be useful for preventing normal earth leakage currents raising the installation's metalwork to a hazardous voltage if the means of Earthing the installation is lost entirely (e.g. break in PE, but not N), but I can't see it being a sensible mitigation to a broken PEN in general. Generally you'd need to achieve something like Ra * I < 50V - where I is the installation's load - to have any sensible effect - so fine where the installation draws less than an amp (single street lights for example) - but even for a modest domestic installation Ra would have to implausibly low to have any sensible effect.
- Andy.
Ra * I < 50V
But if a number of installations downstream of the break have an earth electrode, then Ra(effective) is the parallel resistances of Ra for each installation (assuming no other earthing of the PEN conductor, and no extraneous-conductive-parts).
The good thing about that, is we often hear that there could be high numbers of properties downstream of the break. The higher the number of properties affected, the greater the population at risk ... yet if all had electrodes (and/or extraneous-conductive-parts), the lower Ra(effective) ...
Now, you could also argue that I goes up with the number of installations ... BUT it's also the more likely the break is in a three-phase portion of the distribution network, so if there are n properties downstream of the break, it's only n/3 times as much current (not n times), and also the overall earth electrode resistance requirement is quite possibly lower (depending on the maximum phase imbalance downstream of the break).
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