EICR and Supplementary Bonding.

[Badged01]

Yep C2 is what i have always attributed to a situation like this.....

Good, you've not gone over to the 'dark' side then!

(Comment passed whilst sat on the boundary watching the match with a beer)

 

[rattlehead85]

Biff may I point you to this part (high-lighted in the text), which was the guidance issued by the ESC, albeit not in the BGB.
This was in the older version of the BP guides, I will have a look and see if it is in a newer version.

That is referring to between extraneous pipework not between circuitry and extraneous within the location. As has been repeated so many times..'if there is no SB in place the continuity test to prove its effectiveness ( r<_50v/Ia) cannot be applied.

 

[spark 68]

Where in that document/text does it say between pipe work ?

 

[Geoffsd]

.
.
.
.
.

 

[Gavin A]

My spark's nicked my BGB to study for a course, but in the BRB it's crystal clear what the situation is as far as I can see.

415.2.2
Where doubt exists regarding the effectiveness of supplementary equipotential bonding, it shall be confirmed that the resistance R between simultaneously accessible exposed-conductive parts and extraneous conductive parts fulfils the following criteria:

R< or = to 50V/Ia in AC systems

Where Ia is the operating current in amperes of the protective device - for over current devices the current causing the automatic operation in 5s.

And yes this does apply for the special location because at the start of 701.415.2 it specifically references Regulation 415.2.

Unless this has actually been removed from the BGB, I'm a bit puzzled as to how this thread has ended up as 8 pages of arguing.

 

[Gavin A]

unless someones trying to suggest , in the complete absence of any official guidance whatsoever , is that once supp. bonding cant be visually confirmed , that the inspectors next step is to start randomly carrying continuity tests between bits of metal in the bathroom , in the hope that good readings can now justify a defect reduction to C3 ??

get real.
;-)

see above, that's exactly what BS7671:2008 states, if this has changed in the update then fair enough, but I'm not aware of that change... sure someone who hasn't had the BGB nicked by their spark will confirm it one way or the other.

eta - at least that's how I'm reading it, I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell me I'm wrong, in which case I hope they'll actually supply the refences that clearly show why.

 

[spark 68]

see above, that's exactly what BS7671:2008 states, if this has changed in the update then fair enough, but I'm not aware of that change... sure someone who hasn't had the BGB nicked by their spark will confirm it one way or the other.

Still in the BGB mate.

 

[Guest55]

Biff may I point you to this part (high-lighted in the text)

Note: where the presence of supplementarybonding cannot be confirmed by inspection, it
may be verified by a continuity test ** (< 0.05 ohm) **

fair enough , but in post #1..........

Between pipework and metal light carcass **0.44ohms

Between pipework and downflow heater circuit cpc** ​0.26ohms.

so im still giving it C2.............

 

[Gavin A]

Still in the BGB mate.

cheers, so what's the chances of this now being settled then?

I'd have a fiver on someone trying to say that this only applies after a visual inspection has confirmed the presence of the green and yellow cable with the correct tags on it, so I'll preempt by pointing at 544.2.4

Supplementary bonding shall be provided by a supplementary conductor, a conductive part of a permanent and reliable nature, or by a combination of these.

Assuming that the pipework isn't ****ing water everywhere, it can reasonable be assumed that the probably soldered or compression joints in the copper pipe are of a permanent and reliable nature, and the conductance has been verified by testing.

I'm sure that's been referenced before on this thread already though.

 

[jamie-spark]

this has been a great thread. Its good to see respected members have different views on supplementary bonding ( its not just us plebs that find the application/wording/definitions not ideal to understand at first)
i too thought/think that supplementary bonds had to be in place ( ie see visual confirmation from extraneous conductive parts to exposed conductive parts)
i have GN5,7 and 8 and will certainly be looking over it in the next few days( may take a week for my wee brain to compute it all ) and will give a better judgement on my fence side then.

 

[jamie-spark]

if that makes sense ( the moretti has been flowing :8

 

[Badged01]

.... so what's the chances of this now being settled then? ......

And round in circles we go .......

 

[D Skelton]

Dead Or Alive - You Spin Me Round (Like a Record) - YouTube

 

[Silly Sausage]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpJcn0Otk7I

 

[rattlehead85]

Seeing as i started the debate i would like to close it by saying that i have to agree wholeheartedly with Chris, badged01 and biff on the subject. I'm not saying or suggesting that what Geoff or DSkelton offer up is wrong merely that there interpretation seems to miss the point that section 7 of BS7671 asks for SB to be applied if the 3 conditions are not met. The points put forward by badged01 define very clearly what section 7 asks for. Regardless of any satisfactory results gained during tests proving that the resistance is low enough, the crux of the matter is that SB is REQUIRED in a room containing a bath or shower.