SWA as cpc to submain-Suitability, & PC's on RCD's.

[Jm1980]

Been looking at a CU change in a small office and would appreciate comments on the following.

Office is supplied from the mains intake in the warehouse via a 2 core 16mm SWA buried under concrete with the SWA used as cpc (60A BS88 is the protection). Mains intake in the warehouse is a 3 phase 300A TNCS supply.

Within the office is 16mm bonding to the incoming water and gas services which runs back to the CU i am looking at changing. My question is about the suitability of the armouring as the CPC for the office supply, especially as it branches out into bonding after. Any thoughts from anyone on the setup?

The 16mm SWA is probably a bit small in all honesty if your looking at belt and braces approach but it has existed like this for years with no issues and loading is fairly light. Replacing the cable would be a bit of a nightmare.

The old board is plug in wylex mcb's and a few 3036's protecting a couple of lighting circuits and computer equipment. Obviously i am required to RCD the socket outlets now. I have 3 ring circuits, each with 4 PC's running from it. In terms of build up of leakage current, what's your guys experience of how many PC's should be the max we put on a circuit to avoid nuisance trips?
I will modify the circuits to high integrity cpc connections.

Also looking at AFFD's for the sockets, new amendment has them as a recommendation for socket outlets but not a must for this type of building. What's everyone doing regarding them as they have left a bit of a grey area with that one!

Cheers

 

[pc1966]

If the armour is the only bond to a large extraneous part it could end badly. It is possible simply to run another 10mm or 16mm copper cable to bond the gas pipe back to the MET?

 

[Jm1980]

If the armour is the only bond to a large extraneous part it could end badly. It is possible simply to run another 10mm or 16mm copper cable to bond the gas pipe back to the MET?

It isnt feasible (without a great deal of hassle digging a drive up) to get another cable from the mains intake in the warehouse over to the separate office block.

The gas pipe in the office block does run back to the warehouse (underground) so will be 'bonded' to the MET indirectly via being fixed to the structural steelwork.

 

[pc1966]

It isnt feasible (without a great deal of hassle digging a drive up) to get another cable from the mains intake in the warehouse over to the separate office block.

The gas pipe in the office block does run back to the warehouse (underground) so will be 'bonded' to the MET indirectly via being fixed to the structural steelwork.

Can you verify that it is the same gas pipe in the main MET location? If so you can make sure it is bonded there (you really can't relay on steel work supports, etc) and the problem is dealt with.

 

[Jm1980]

Can you verify that it is the same gas pipe in the main MET location? If so you can make sure it is bonded there (you really can't relay on steel work supports, etc) and the problem is dealt with.

Yes, from memory, 3 phase supply into warehouse where we have our MET…..35mm bonding to gas, water and steelwork in this building.

What looked to be the same gas pipe (could test to confirm I guess) ran underground from warehouse (where it was metered) into the stand alone office.

In the office, the CU I am quoting to change has its earth bar (earth marshalling terminal?) connected to the gas and water where they come into the office.

 

[pc1966]

Yes, from memory, 3 phase supply into warehouse where we have our MET…..35mm bonding to gas, water and steelwork in this building.

What looked to be the same gas pipe (could test to confirm I guess) ran underground from warehouse (where it was metered) into the stand alone office.

In the office, the CU I am quoting to change has its earth bar (earth marshalling terminal?) connected to the gas and water where they come into the office.

It sounds as if it is fine in that case, but you ought to confirm the pipe is (at least electrically) the same.

When you have the to-be-replaced CU disconnected you ought to be able to check the resistance using a wander lead (I guess, if you can safely get it from MET to pipe) and if that is well under an ohm I would be happy.

If a wander lead is not practical, then once sub-main is isolated and armour simply checking from pipe to sub-main armour at the remote building should give pretty low results as well if the pipework is common. You can link L&N of the 16mm and measure the R1+Rn to get an estimate of that cable length, and from there an estimate of the R2 expected of the armour, and then from armour to pipe the difference should be that more-or-less of the pipe.

The Prysmain sheet I have lists 16mm Cu as 1.15 mOhm/m and the 2C armour as 3.7 mOhm/m

 

[westward10]

Main protective bonds are required in this building (see Regulation 411.3.1.2) and the armour of your supply cable is inadequate to support PME bonding.

 

[davesparks]

Can you verify that it is the same gas pipe in the main MET location? If so you can make sure it is bonded there (you really can't relay on steel work supports, etc) and the problem is dealt with.

The problem would not be dealt with. The gas pipe, whether it is bonded in the main building or not, needs to be bonded at the point of entry to the outbuilding.

The needs to be adequately sized for the incoming supply, 35mm has been mentioned by the OP, and be at least that size all the way back to the MET. This bond can be a continuous conductor back to the MET but would normally connect to an earth marshalling terminal at the outbuilding which is then connected back to the MET via a combined CPC and bonding conductor as part of the submain.

 

[timhoward]

I wonder what the practicalities would be of getting an insulated section of gas pipe fitted where it enters the outbuilding, and whether this is more or less attractive than upgrading the bonding back to the origin.
I have a feeling it's going to be a hard sell to convince anyone that this problem needs solving too, so best of luck.

 

[pc1966]

The problem would not be dealt with. The gas pipe, whether it is bonded in the main building or not, needs to be bonded at the point of entry to the outbuilding.

Very true, but if it is the same metal that is already bonded to the MET then the job here is really ones of supplementary bonding, and for that the SWA armour is adequate.

Of course that is not how the regulations, or GN8, treats it as it assumes any extraneous conductive part in a different building might not be part of some structure that always has an identical electrically potential. Hence the very onerous demands such as here where (probably, guess based on 300A supply) 35mm bonding would be specified and that is not in any way reasonable to expect for a cable of 16mm.

If running a new cable is really out of the question then the obvious solution would be to TT the outbuilding and put in a 300mA delay RCD incomer or similar. Putting in a suitable rod might prove tricky without hitting any buried service pipe of course!

TN-C-S - a novel way for DNOs to push hidden costs to the customer...

 

[pc1966]

I wonder what the practicalities would be of getting an insulated section of gas pipe fitted where it enters the outbuilding, and whether this is more or less attractive than upgrading the bonding back to the origin.

That might well prove to be the best solution by far. Probably cheaper than running in a new cable if the original was buried direct and not ducted, and it also avoids the issue of TT-ing the building (safe install of a rod needed, neutral-switching RCBOs if proper selectivity needed, danger of any control/signal cables between buildings becoming the "main bonding conductor" and going up in flames, etc)

I have a feeling it's going to be a hard sell to convince anyone that this problem needs solving too, so best of luck.

Indeed, here is a case where the implications of a TN-C-S supply really make trouble for any existing installation. Of course it fails the current regulations, but I would doubt it is actually unsafe if the gas pipe is already bonded and the one and only common thing.

 

[timhoward]

If running a new cable is really out of the question then the obvious solution would be to TT the outbuilding and put in a 300mA delay RCD incomer or similar.

Now this is hurting my brain.
At first glance you end up back where you started, just with a copper pipe instead of a CPC?
And an RCD that won't trip if the neutral currents are diverted.

I'm obviously missing something!

 

[pc1966]

Now this is hurting my brain.
At first glance you end up back where you started, just with a copper pipe instead of a CPC?
And an RCD that won't trip if the neutral currents are diverted.

I'm obviously missing something!

The risk that this argument on PME bonding it trying to alleviate is the case where the two buildings are in fact on different pipes. So of the incoming supply has an open-PEN fault and only the out building's pipe is a good earth (probably via other TN-C-S bonding elsewhere...) and thus you get all of the faulted segment's neutral current flowing along the sub-main's armour to this pipe and it overheats.

By making that out-building TT you no longer have that risk as no CPCs between them (overlooking the issue of any control/signal cables that might be present).

Now if both buildings are on the same pipe then your out-building Zdb is going to be very low as the parallel earth of the pipe is there, but you don't have any risk of high CPC currents, even if you do get high service pipe currents.

 

[pc1966]

Looking at GN8 is helpfully expands the reg's definition of an extraneous conductive part as:

1. A conductive part;
2. Liable to introduce a potential, generally Earth potential; and
3. Not forming part of the electrical installation

Back to the OP's situation, if I understand it this out-building is on the main site and fed from the warehouse. The question for me is if the gas pipe is also fed from the same warehouse where it is bonded to the MET (i.e. not a separate supply, and not the point of incoming supply that then goes to the main building).

If so then I would argue that a metal pipe from the main building, largely on and under the control of the overall property, once bonded to the MET is part of the overall installation (point 3 above) so it is no longer an extraneous conductive part but is instead an exposed conductive part.

In that case it still needs bonding, but that could be anything meeting supplementary bonding regulations. Though personally I would still use 10mm as the steel armour is around 5-6mm equivalent and a bit better at dissipating heat due to larger cable surface area.

So after 3 pages back at what @westward10 said in post #2 !

 

[westward10]

Not since I read Regulation 411.3.1.2.

 

[westward10]

The risk that this argument on PME bonding it trying to alleviate is the case where the two buildings are in fact on different pipes. So of the incoming supply has an open-PEN fault and only the out building's pipe is a good earth (probably via other TN-C-S bonding elsewhere...) and thus you get all of the faulted segment's neutral current flowing along the sub-main's armour to this pipe and it overheats.

By making that out-building TT you no longer have that risk as no CPCs between them (overlooking the issue of any control/signal cables that might be present).

Now if both buildings are on the same pipe then your out-building Zdb is going to be very low as the parallel earth of the pipe is there, but you don't have any risk of high CPC currents, even if you do get high service pipe currents.

Strange you should mention control/signal cables. A fair few years back I was working in a metal framed warehouse where they grew of all things dandelions for their seeds to be used by chemical companies for weed killer production. They had made it TT but there was no electrode, the main protective bond to the structure provided a somewhat tenuous earth, it was all but non existent due to the concrete base. A couple of Zs tests took out the data cables connected back to the owners house as their return to earth was better than the steel structure.