18th Edition Bonding requirements

GMES · Jan 5, 2019

camerabloke said:
Can’t see any reason for either on my feed

Then it may be time to invest in some Glasses because they will be there.

camerabloke · Jan 5, 2019

GMES said:
Then it may be time to invest in some Glasses because they will be there.

Yeah ok

GMES · Jan 5, 2019

Pretty clear for me to see, it looks like you've had 2 deleted one by me and one by westy.

[ElectriciansForums.net] 18th Edition Bonding requirements

camerabloke · Jan 5, 2019

westward10 said:
You just did

So why hasn’t west’s post been been deleted? Irrelevant post really?

Toneyz · Jan 5, 2019

camerabloke said:
Just to clarify ant. Does it say in 18 that you have to bond incoming services if it comes in on a plastic sleeve?

Are we talking about a metal service coming in in the plastic sleeve? I guess that you would need to test if it was extraneous or not. No wonder I say you don't post on the forum a lot I don't get to read your posts as they all get deleted.

GMES · Jan 5, 2019

Ps that is a screen shot magnified from the main page so every other member including you must be able to see it.
Anyway I'm done for the night, I have been more than accommodating with my replies in explaining things, which too be fair I don't have to do. There is a sticky somewhere that explains staff do not have to explain their actions to members, I also know staff past and present that have banned members for that very thing.

camerabloke · Jan 5, 2019

Crack on and ban me then. Plenty of irrelevant posts in that thread that weren’t deleted

Sintra · Jan 6, 2019

camerabloke said:
Crack on and ban me then. Plenty of irrelevant posts in that thread that weren’t deleted

Any more and you will be banned. So just knock it on the head.

AJshep · Jan 6, 2019

Getting back to the thread.
I recently did my 18th and the lecturer was a rather arrogant and argumentative chap, thats me being polite.
Anyway we spoke about this, he said this regulation is floored and gave us a this fault scenario..
Someone has been contracted to put in a towel rail in a bathroom they have installed it correctly ( RCD protected etc), they checked main bonding, when testing and saw that the incomming services were plastic, and left site.

A few days later..
The boiler in the basement develops
A L-E fault, (lets say it has no cpc either) this is not RCD protected the pipework is copper apart from the incomming pipework..
The pipework in the bathroom is now live and the customer would get a shock if they touched the new towel rail and taps at the same time. The RCD on the towel rail is not relevant as the fault is on the boiler circuit, so no protection is offered. the the electrician didnt test the boiler in the basement as he wasnt contracted to.

This was his take, he told us we should go back to installing supplementary bonding to bathrooms as standard, when question and alternative earth paths were mentioned he expanded and got upset and stated that, relying on RCDs in the event of a fault is still painful expericence for the person receiving 30mA.
EEBADS worked.

Deleted member 26818 · Jan 6, 2019

So the tutor is saying bonding should be provided, in case someone may have installed a boiler supply without a CPC?

johnduffell · Jan 6, 2019

AJshep said:
The boiler in the basement develops
A L-E fault, (lets say it has no cpc either) this is not RCD protected the pipework is copper apart from the incomming pipework..

So the boiler has a double fault situation that can't be covered by bs7671, no earth and an l-e fault, therefore it's a very dange situation.

AJshep said:
The pipework in the bathroom is now live and the customer would get a shock if they touched the new towel rail and taps at the same time.

The towel rail and bathroom location is irrelevant, basically this is the"all conductive surfaces are dangerous" argument which is true, and applies regardless of whether they are bonded or not. Argument has been made for bonding conductive things that are built into the fabric of the building, but you have to draw the line somewhere otherwise you're bonding teaspoons before you know it in case someone pokes them in a toaster.

My personal opinion is given the choice you should avoid conductive surfaces especially ones that pop up around the house eg pipework and metal frameframe partitions.

AJshep · Jan 6, 2019

johnduffell and Spin..
I agree with both your statements, the chap was a idiot.
I had this arguments with the tutor, I also told him its not always practical carrying out supplementary bonding in some modern properties (with boxed in pipework).
Changing the subject, I mentioned about the lines next to the regulations in the book being amendments or re- worded.. He told me they were printing errors throughout the book.

He also told us we should be installing domestic ( battery backup/ Aico) smoke detectors in Fp200 as in the scope 560.1 they are considered a saftey service so should comply with 560.81

Anyway I passed even if most of the day was spent doing cable calculations ( for some reason).

Ian1981 · Jan 6, 2019

AJshep said:
johnduffell and Spin..
I agree with both your statements, the chap was a idiot.
I had this arguments with the tutor, I also told him its not always practical carrying out supplementary bonding in some modern properties (with boxed in pipework).
Changing the subject, I mentioned about the lines next to the regulations in the book being amendments or re- worded.. He told me they were printing errors throughout the book.
He also told us we should be installing domestic ( battery backup/ Aico) smoke detectors in Fp200 as in the scope 560.1 they are considered a saftey service so should comply with 560.81

Anyway I passed even if most of the day was spent doing cable calculations ( for some reason).

Bs 5839 part 6 takes priority to bs7671 in this scenario and it doesn’t require smoke detectors in a dwelling to be of a fire resistant material nore does it state that the wiring shall be independent from the other circuits, as you can install from a local lightning circuit or it’s own circuit

He sounds like a bit of a -----

Wilko · Jan 6, 2019

I have a small bit of sympathy for the tutor, but only small. Most likely he's not bouncing his ideas off Forum Folks to get a balanced view, to prompt him to read this or that or challenge him to an arm wrestle.

governor88 · Jul 7, 2019

hi guys , dont shoot me too early as I'm a newbie and also not a electrician but I am merely here for your take on a friends situation she has found herself in with a recent house re wire she has paid for .. basically she has noticed that there is no earth bonding on any water or gas supply in her house , the incoming gas supply is old iron pipe with no plastic at all and the water supply is also copper incoming , there is no plastic pipe in the house at all , all pipework is copper .. the question is should both or any supplys have been bonded ? I have attached pictures of both gas and water supply for you to look at and thanks for any replys ..

Deleted member 26818 · Jul 7, 2019

Yes, both should have been bonded.

governor88 · Jul 7, 2019

spinlondon said:
Yes, both should have been bonded.

thanks for the quick reply! really appreciate it , now I know you've said both should have been done but could you explain why in idiot terms haha .. I have said to her after doing a bit of research that I think it should have been done but if I she could go back to the electrician that did the work with a electricians reply then he might move his arse haha

Deleted member 26818 · Jul 7, 2019

First off, it’s a requirement of the Regulations:
411.3.1.2 Protective equipotential bonding
In each installation main protective bonding conductors complying with Chapter 54 shall connect to the main earthing terminal extraneous-conductive-parts including the following:
(i) Water installation pipes
(ii) Gas installation pipes
(iii) Other installation pipework and ducting
(iv) Central heating and air conditioning systems
(v) Exposed metallic structural parts of the building.

Metallic pipes entering the building having an insulating section at their point of entry need not be connected to the protective equipotential bonding.

Connection of a lightning protection system to the protective equipotential bonding shall be made in accordance with BS EN 62305.

Where an installation serves more than one building the above requirement shall be applied to each building.

To comply with the requirements of these Regulations it is also necessary to apply equipotential bonding to any metallic sheath of a telecommunication cable. However, the consent of the owner or operator of the cable shall be obtained.

701.415.2 Supplementary protective equipotential bonding
Local supplementary protective equipotential bonding according to Regulation 415.2 shall be established connecting together the terminals of the protective conductor of each circuit supplying Class I and Class II equipment to the accessible extraneous-conductive-parts, within a room containing a bath or shower, including the following:
(i) metallic pipes supplying services and metallic waste pipes (e.g. water, gas)
(ii) metallic central heating pipes and air conditioning systems
(iii) accessible metallic structural parts of the building (metallic door architraves, window frames and similar parts are not considered to be extraneous-conductive-parts unless they are connected to metallic structural parts of the building).

Supplementary protective equipotential bonding may be installed outside or inside rooms containing a bath or shower, preferably close to the point of entry of extraneous-conductive-parts into such rooms.

Where the location containing a bath or shower is in a building with a protective equipotential bonding system in accordance with Regulation 411.3.1.2, supplementary protective equipotential bonding may be omitted where all of the following conditions are met:
(iv) All final circuits of the location comply with the requirements for automatic disconnection according to Regulation 411.3.2
(v) All final circuits of the location have additional protection by means of an RCD in accordance with Regulation 415.1.1
(vi) All extraneous-conductive-parts of the location are effectively connected to the protective equipotential bonding according to Regulation 411.3.1.2.

NOTE: The effectiveness of the connection of extraneous-conductive-parts in the location to the main earthing terminal may be assessed, where necessary, by the application of Regulation 415.2.2.

Secondly because it’s dangerous not to do so.

governor88 · Jul 7, 2019

spinlondon said:
First off, it’s a requirement of the Regulations:
411.3.1.2 Protective equipotential bonding
In each installation main protective bonding conductors complying with Chapter 54 shall connect to the main earthing terminal extraneous-conductive-parts including the following:
(i) Water installation pipes
(ii) Gas installation pipes
(iii) Other installation pipework and ducting
(iv) Central heating and air conditioning systems
(v) Exposed metallic structural parts of the building.

Metallic pipes entering the building having an insulating section at their point of entry need not be connected to the protective equipotential bonding.

Connection of a lightning protection system to the protective equipotential bonding shall be made in accordance with BS EN 62305.

Where an installation serves more than one building the above requirement shall be applied to each building.

To comply with the requirements of these Regulations it is also necessary to apply equipotential bonding to any metallic sheath of a telecommunication cable. However, the consent of the owner or operator of the cable shall be obtained.

701.415.2 Supplementary protective equipotential bonding
Local supplementary protective equipotential bonding according to Regulation 415.2 shall be established connecting together the terminals of the protective conductor of each circuit supplying Class I and Class II equipment to the accessible extraneous-conductive-parts, within a room containing a bath or shower, including the following:
(i) metallic pipes supplying services and metallic waste pipes (e.g. water, gas)
(ii) metallic central heating pipes and air conditioning systems
(iii) accessible metallic structural parts of the building (metallic door architraves, window frames and similar parts are not considered to be extraneous-conductive-parts unless they are connected to metallic structural parts of the building).

Supplementary protective equipotential bonding may be installed outside or inside rooms containing a bath or shower, preferably close to the point of entry of extraneous-conductive-parts into such rooms.

Where the location containing a bath or shower is in a building with a protective equipotential bonding system in accordance with Regulation 411.3.1.2, supplementary protective equipotential bonding may be omitted where all of the following conditions are met:
(iv) All final circuits of the location comply with the requirements for automatic disconnection according to Regulation 411.3.2
(v) All final circuits of the location have additional protection by means of an RCD in accordance with Regulation 415.1.1
(vi) All extraneous-conductive-parts of the location are effectively connected to the protective equipotential bonding according to Regulation 411.3.1.2.

NOTE: The effectiveness of the connection of extraneous-conductive-parts in the location to the main earthing terminal may be assessed, where necessary, by the application of Regulation 415.2.2.

Secondly because it’s dangerous not to do so.

so from the two pictures I have shown you you can categorically say it should have been done then ? even with a new distribution board and the house being re wired there is under no circumstances a reason for why the bonding shouldn't have been done in this house ? sorry for the repetativness of my questions but we want to be 100% before she goes back to the sparky (I use that word loosly) and asks him to do the work properly

Deleted member 26818 · Jul 7, 2019

Based on the information and photos you have provided, I can categorically state bonding should have been provided.

governor88 · Jul 7, 2019

spinlondon said:
Based on the information and photos you have provided, I can categorically state bonding should have been provided.

thanks mate your a legend ! basically all the so called sparky said when questioned about the bonding was with the new 18th edition it doesn't need doing which baffled me and I had a sneaky feeling he was using the new edition as a excuse

Midwest · Jul 7, 2019

Being picky, both would need to be tested to see if their are extraneous; but I think thats a given.

governor88 · Jul 7, 2019

Midwest said:
Being picky, both would need to be tested to see if their are extraneous; but I think thats a given.

thanks for the reply .. I'm not a electrician and I'm judging it needs doing purely on commen sense , surely if all the incoming supplys and pipework in the property can carry a voltage then it needs everything? as I stated in my first post dont shoot me straight away please lol .. also judging on the way the house has been re wired (bad workmanship) I wouldnt be surprised if it was wrong .. I also noticed the kitchen isnt on it's own circuit on the distribution board it's part of downstairs sockets which is just pure lazy , the garage which is fed with a armoured cable underground only has 1 fused spur in it even though there is a lighting circuit off it aswell , back boxs are not even level in the wall etc etc .. the list goes on

Deleted member 26818 · Jul 7, 2019

Midwest said:
Being picky, both would need to be tested to see if their are extraneous; but I think thats a given.

No testing required.
Both services come from outside the building and neither are part of the electrical installation.
You could test to see whether there is a potential, but that wouldn’t really mean much, as the requirement is to bond extraneous-conductive-parts which are liable to introduce a potential.

Midwest · Jul 8, 2019

spinlondon said:
No testing required.
Both services come from outside the building and neither are part of the electrical installation.
You could test to see whether there is a potential, but that wouldn’t really mean much, as the requirement is to bond extraneous-conductive-parts which are liable to introduce a potential.

Like you would say, judging from a picture(s) on a pc screen, one can't be certain they will introduce a potential (that they do come from the outside) or don't have some plastic insert before they enter. Only OP can tell that.

I've been pulled up before saying no testing required etc in such circumstances.

Its a simple test, which OP should be advised to carry out. Doubt it, but it might be why they are not bonded.

-

-

Toneyz

-

-

Deleted member 26818

-

-

-

-

-

Attachments

Deleted member 26818

-

Deleted member 26818

-

Deleted member 26818

-

-

-

Deleted member 26818

-

Similar Threads

OFFICIAL SPONSORS