Advice on regulation 521.5.1

[Paul.M]

It's actually quite a good thread paul.

Theres a bit of silliness and provoking language but it's not too bad and the main thing is everyone is actually contributing, unlike in the past where there would have been posts solely designed to cause offense.

Let's see if the music has helped :smile5:

Yes it is a good thread but it has been reported and we thought a bit of chill out music was the best option. Next time DW is picking the track

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Yes it is a good thread but it has been reported and we thought a bit of chill out music was the best option. Next time DW is picking the track

You do realise I now have Nina Simone blaring out! The link lasts for 1 hour 15 minutes and 33 seconds!!

 

[andyb]

It's actually quite a good thread paul.

Theres a bit of silliness and provoking language but it's not too bad and the main thing is everyone is actually contributing, unlike in the past where there would have been posts solely designed to cause offense.

Let's see if the music has helped :smile5:


ps... Although as for whether the Main CPC should go through the same hole as the tails I'm far more confused than when I first read the reg!! I think I'll stick to what the reg says and have all three together, thus it avoids any problems with those eddies and complies with BS7671.

I agree with all this hhd, I must admit that until this thread I was unaware that the protective conductor of a circuit needs to enter with the live conductors. (I'm talking about a ferrous metal enclosure for any pedant out there)

As an aside, how much current and for how long would need to flow through a conductor for it to be a problem?
It seems to me that if a fault current flows for long enough and does not operate the ocpd then you have a bit more of a problem that a piece of metal getting warm.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Rather than asking the NICEIC for advice on what the Regulations mean, perhaps you should try asking the IET.

 

[Risteard]

Although as for whether the Main CPC should go through the same hole as the tails I'm far more confused than when I first read the reg!! I think I'll stick to what the reg says and have all three together, thus it avoids any problems with those eddies and complies with BS7671.

How is there any confusion? The Earthing Conductor is a protective conductor so the Regulation is clear and explicit.

I don't understand the confusion. A number of years ago I flagged up the issue during initial verification where the three phases and the neutral entered a switch fuse through one entry and the Earthing Conductor through another. The NICEIC Approved Contractor I was working for tried to tell me that I was wrong about protective conductors being subjected to the same rules as the live conductors but it is and always has been stated very clearly in the Regulations.

 

[HappyHippyDad]

How is there any confusion? The Earthing Conductor is a protective conductor so the Regulation is clear and explicit.

I don't understand the confusion. A number of years ago I flagged up the issue during initial verification where the three phases and the neutral entered a switch fuse through one entry and the Earthing Conductor through another. The NICEIC Approved Contractor I was working for tried to tell me that I was wrong about protective conductors being subjected to the same rules as the live conductors but it is and always has been stated very clearly in the Regulations.

You're confused about the confusion and I'm confused about your confusion about the confusion!

 

[davesparks]

As an aside, how much current and for how long would need to flow through a conductor for it to be a problem?
It seems to me that if a fault current flows for long enough and does not operate the ocpd then you have a bit more of a problem that a piece of metal getting warm.

Considering that fault currents can be in the thousands of amps it will probably take a fraction of a second for the eddy currents to become a problem. Don't forget current has more effects than just heating the conductor, the magnetic fields will cause mechanical stress at those levels.

 

[Dave OCD]

No, I hate children
Wtf does having kids have to do with it?

Why does this not surprise me ?

 

[davesparks]

Why does this not surprise me ?

Which bit?

 

[Dave OCD]

It just came into my head Dave, bit strong saying you hate kids though, you were one once ? :smiley2:

 

[interlude]

Why spin?
it has always been acceptable, whilst ill advised to run a "separate" earth (cpc) alongside an SWA, as both the SWA & the "earth" must be capable of carrying the full fault current and suitably terminated to meet the requirements, so it is just a waste of money to do this.
So nothing has changed.
It is still stupid to waste money on a separate cpc, so why bother?

This is something we have always adhered to, but what regulation does it actually come from?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It doesn't come from any Regulation.
There is a requirement where high integrity earthing is required for both CPCs to be selected so that each satisfies the requirements for a CPC.
However there is nothing in standard circuits to prohibit the use of two conductors which will only satisfy the requirements for a CPC when combined.

 

[netblindpaul]

This is something we have always adhered to, but what regulation does it actually come from?

543.1.1

 

[Deleted member 26818]

411.3.2.6

 

[netblindpaul]

Where does supplementary bonding come under the realms of a circuit protective conductor?