MPBC is it required

[cliffed]

During an Eicr noticed the remote garage got an up & over metallic door.. the garage got its own CU & relevant RCBO’s… No incoming services only the newly installed Garage Door which is controlled by remote… would you consider a MPBC to it

 

[buzzlightyear]

consider a MPBC to it

English man, English.

 

[cliffed]

English man, English.

Main Protective Bonding Conductor ..everything’s abbreviated these days…Soz

 

[loz2754]

No, unless it's likely to introduce a potential.

 

[cliffed]

No, unless it's likely to introduce a potential.

Ok… it’s a bit different from normal circumstances, being a possible internal & external situation on fault condition

 

[loz2754]

Is it in direct contact with the ground?

 

[Rockingit]

I think the roller mechanisms on these (the tank style pulleys) are often plastic for this reason. Just do a continuity test from cpc to the door, see what you get.

 

[cliffed]

Is it in direct contact with the ground?

It’s in contact with the ground & the rollers are metal too

 

[loz2754]

It’s in contact with the ground & the rollers are metal too

Then it needs bonding. By definition of an extraneous conductive part.

 

[Rockingit]

Then it needs bonding. By definition of an extraneous conductive part.

It may not be, though. If the controller / motor unit is class 2 (which I'd wager it is) then it's not an extraneous part. No different to the now infamous crittal window scenario. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that by bonding it you could be introducing a potential hazard where none previously existed.

 

[cliffed]

It may not be, though. If the controller / motor unit is class 2 (which I'd wager it is) then it's not an extraneous part. No different to the now infamous crittal window scenario. In fact I'd go so far as to suggest that by bonding it you could be introducing a potential hazard where none previously existed.

Agree once again this topic always causes concern
MPBC if required would mean a TT system, it’s a report @ the moment & FI required

 

[mainline]

Agree once again this topic always causes concern
MPBC if required would mean a TT system, it’s a report @ the moment & FI required

A bit of testing would be an idea to ascertain if it is indeed extraneous.

 

[loz2754]

It may not be, though. If the controller / motor unit is class 2 (which I'd wager it is) then it's not an extraneous part

The motor is surely irrelevant, if there is a large lump of metal in contact with the ground (the frame of the roller shutter door) then it's most likely an extraneous conductive part (but would only require bonding if it's simultaneously accessible with any exposed conductive parts). There are other circuits in the CU, which may not be connected at the moment, but most likely will be at some point, probably including sockets.

It would be prudent to test it in any case.

For an EICR, I would suggest it's a C2 if it proves to be an ExtConPt.

 

[pc1966]

For an EICR, I would suggest it's a C2 if it proves to be an ExtConPt.

Why?

That seems a bit severe unless it is a specific situation (building site, marina, etc) where connection to a PME style of supply is prohibited.

 

[Rockingit]

The motor is surely irrelevant, if there is a large lump of metal in contact with the ground (the frame of the roller shutter door) then it's most likely an extraneous conductive part (but would only require bonding if it's simultaneously accessible with any exposed conductive parts). There are other circuits in the CU, which may not be connected at the moment, but most likely will be at some point, probably including sockets.

It would be prudent to test it in any case.

For an EICR, I would suggest it's a C2 if it proves to be an ExtConPt.

By that logic so is a garden gate!! My question remains - how, exactly, do you propose that this door is going to become part of an electrical circuit?