Discuss new installtion (bonding) in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:  American Electrical Advice Forum

1/ ive bonded the incoming gas (copper) to the boiler water pipes ..(.the boiler is fed directly from the c/unit..on ..2.5mm.to a fused spur outlet.).however do i need to extend the bonding using 10mm the earth strip in the electrical meter box?
2/ in the kitchen there are 3 metal stays spanning the ceiling....to provide additional support to the ceiling/walls,,,,they are in turn bolted to some upright boxed steel to the foundations of the building....the upright sections have been plaster boarded over.....how can i bond these? do i need to? all ccts are rcd protected.
this job is for my nicie:frown2:c assessment..any advice gratefully received.
 
D

Deleted member 9648

An incoming copper gas service is likely to be an extraneous conductive part and will need main bonding back to the MET....not supplementary bonding to heating pipes.
The steel should be tested to establish whether it is an ECP and if it is a suitable location will have to be found for it to be main bonded.
I would suggest you study bonding requirements and principles before your assessment, as it is apparent from the first question that your understanding is limited.
 
yes you need to bond gas pipe with 10mm from met
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
in the past weve linked inside the gas meter box...but now advised were allowed no connections within this area..and yes we need bonding between the water to the boiler also..which ive done. many thanks.
 
N

nickblake

Funny isnt it over here the gas safe are insisting that these connections are made at the meter , not inside the building , regs state inside the building ,so i go with the regs , bonding should be connected with 600mm of the incomming service ,
 
in the past weve linked inside the gas meter box...but now advised were allowed no connections within this area..and yes we need bonding between the water to the boiler also..which ive done. many thanks.
I can only assume you are working to either the gas regulations or in adherence of the Manufacturers Instructions of the boiler, why else are you supplementary cross bonding the pipes, when you should be bonding the main incoming supplies, if they are Extraneous Conductive parts
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
nah the gas feed to gas meter is plastic..... its copper from meter to boiler....gas safe engineer just needed to see bonding between the copper section and the boiler water pipes...,but insisted no connections to the gas pipe were to be made inside the meter box!!!
now hes gone im hooking up in there...the boiler is miles from the c/unit..and met otherwise.,
 
Have a read on things son .......... in OUR regs.

Start with 415.2 concerning supplementary equipotential bonding and then direct yourself to 701.415.2 which I know is for locations containing a bath or shower but if you can

1) ascertain that those pipes are Extraneous conductive parts, and that is easy IR test pipes back to main MET via a wander lead and if over 23Kohm they are not

2) If they are and you satisfy sections (iv) (v) and (vi) in the 701 reg, which the RCD will do (iv) and (v), then you just need to make sure (vi) is in place

So what have you actually got.

By the way ask the gas plumber for a copy of his DEGREE if he is handy at giving out electrical advice
 

Sintra

Admin
Supporter
The title of the thread is new installation therefore distance to consumer unit and MET is totally irrelevant.
 

Jimmy Boy

-
Arms
Since when does a pipe man tell us/you on the requirements of 7671 ? Does you/he actually understand what an Extraneous conductive part is ? ( Page 28 of the BGB ),do you know why you are bonding ? and for what purpose? How is a plastic fed pipe going to fit in to the 'Extraneous' tick box ?
J
 
E

Engineer54

How is a plastic fed pipe going to fit in to the 'Extraneous' tick box ?
Don't make assumptions based solely on the main gas and water feed pipes into a building being plastic, so No bonding being required!!

Your probably right in this particular instance, but you can't make this a standard ruling. Take for instance a concrete frame multi-story building where the internal gas or water supply pipes, are copper, or Galv steel, or some other metallic material. They could be buried into the fabric of the building, in contact with, or fixed to other extraneous metalwork, the list is endless. You need to ''Always'' test first, then make your assessment as to whether or not service pipes etc require bonding back to the MET or not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jimmy Boy

-
Arms
54 I was asking the OP exactly that question lol was it an assumption on his part that it needed bonding or not.
J
 
Don't make assumptions based solely on the main gas and water feed pipes into a building being plastic, so No bonding being required!!

Your probably right in this particular instance, but you can't make this a standard ruling. Take for instance a concrete frame multi-story building where the internal gas or water supply pipes, are copper, or Galv steel, or some other metallic material. They could be buried into the fabric of the building, in contact with, or fixed to other extraneous metalwork, the list is endless. You need to ''Always'' test first, then make your assessment as to whether or not service pipes etc require bonding back to the MET or not.
I absolutely disagree with this-the fact that the structural steel etc. may meet the definition of an extraneous-conductive part does not mean that anything fixed or coming into contact with it then meets this definition.
If the structural steel (likely) does meet the definition of an extraneous-conductive part then main protective bonding must be installed to that structural streel.

Think about it-by that argument, anything conductive fixed to the steel structure etc. would require main protective bonding!
 
E

Engineer54

I absolutely disagree with this-the fact that the structural steel etc. may meet the definition of an extraneous-conductive part does not mean that anything fixed or coming into contact with it then meets this definition.
If the structural steel (likely) does meet the definition of an extraneous-conductive part then main protective bonding must be installed to that structural streel.

Think about it-by that argument, anything conductive fixed to the steel structure etc. would require main protective bonding!
You obviously haven't had much experience in concrete framed and floored buildings then... So according to you, we just ignore any metalwork that has, or can give a potential in a building where people either live and/or work??

No-ones talking about exposed structural steelwork here, this could be steelwork fixed to the building fabric, Depending on whether the steelwork or other services are in contact with the buildings reinforcement, directly ''or otherwise'' would cause any of that steelwork or the service pipes to be extraneous!! How many such buildings have had the re-bar taken out to be bonded, not many i would hazard a guess. That unconnected but very much earthed Ufer grounding that will be present throughout the whole building via the tied re-bar and anything that is also connected to the re-bar , could be at a far lower ohmic value than either, or both the services combined, ....Or would you want to disagree with that too??

I have heard you scoff at stairwell metal railings not being extraneous, but i would bet in more than 90+% of cases in a concrete framed/floored building they would be well, well under your 23K ohms...

As for your last point, the services of such a building could have well been bonded previously. Then the service provider(s) comes along and replaces said service with a plastic incoming supply! According to you, no need to bond the remaining exisiting metallic pipework?? Go to any decent sized older concrete framed/floored building that has a modern plastic water and or gas incoming supply and do an IR test. I can practically guarantee you'll see very low ohmic values, Hell we get to see them on our project buildings (All the common services are plastic) before the Ufers are permanently connected up to the system...
 
The point I made (as you well know) was that a metallic part/pipe/duct etc etc. does not meet the definition of an extraneous-conductive part simply by virtue of its contact with an extraneous-conductive part!
Yes or no??

If the steelwork is bonded in accordance with BS7671 then that does not influence the bonding requirements of any other services-that was my point!
Yes or no??

If no, can you point me to the particular regulation or guidance on this as I've obviously had some pages missing from my last few editions of BS7671 and Guidance Note 8 and I don't really 'do' opinions.
 
E

Engineer54

The point I made (as you well know) was that a metallic part/pipe/duct etc etc. does not meet the definition of an extraneous-conductive part simply by virtue of its contact with an extraneous-conductive part!
Yes or no?? Does that include being tied in ''direct contact??, if so NO!!!

If the steelwork is bonded in accordance with BS7671 then that does not influence the bonding requirements of any other services-that was my point! If the Ufer arrangement (Building re-bar) has been taken back to the MET ...Yes!! if not NO!!
Yes or no??

If no, can you point me to the particular regulation or guidance on this as I've obviously had some pages missing from my last few editions of BS7671 and Guidance Note 8 and I don't really 'do' opinions.

Trying to be smart doesn't always pay off!!

IQ, ...i pointed out quite clearly ''i am not talking about exposed metalwork'' What i am saying, is that in such buildings, where metallic pipework can and often does, get buried in the fabric of columns during construction as an easy route through the floors, ..these pipes will almost definitly be tied to the larger virtical re-bars. Or they may pass through concrete floors in accessible service shafts again often tied to the re-bar as they pass through (before being sealed with fireproof mortar or similar). Will be in solid contact and as stated, often be tied to the extraneous metalwork (re-bar) of a very low ohmic value!! So please don't tell me that such pipework shouldn't, or has no need for bonding... Nothing is clear cut, which is why you need to survey and test such a building construction, and hence my original comment, that you totally disagreed with.

Everyone has the ability to form opinions. whereas you form yours out of a book, i form mine from the realities and the practicalities of a given situation. Pehaps you should think a little more on the subject. Maybe think why you need to design the re-bar distribution of a concrete framed building intended to use the re-bar in the columns as the down conductors of a lightning protection system?? (Isolation) That at least, should give you some idea of the ohmic value present in the re-bar steelwork of a concrete framed building....

As i said, you don't have the required experience of such buildings (and i'm not trying to be funny either) to make sweeping incorrect statements. Your questions above relate more to domestic, small commercial and small industrial units. Multi story concrete framed and structural steel high rise buildings have a lot more involved to them... Many asspects you can literary throw your BS7671 to one side!!!
 
IQ, ...i pointed out quite clearly ''i am not talking about exposed metalwork'' What i am saying, is that in such buildings, where metallic pipework can and often does, get buried in the fabric of columns during construction as an easy route through the floors, ..these pipes will almost definitly be tied to the larger virtical re-bars. Or they may pass through concrete floors in accessible service shafts again often tied to the re-bar as they pass through (before being sealed with fireproof mortar or similar). Will be in solid contact and as stated, often be tied to the extraneous metalwork (re-bar) of a very low ohmic value!! So please don't tell me that such pipework shouldn't, or has no need for bonding... Nothing is clear cut, which is why you need to survey and test such a building construction, and hence my original comment, that you totally disagreed with.

Everyone has the ability to form opinions. whereas you form yours out of a book, i form mine from the realities and the practicalities of a given situation. Pehaps you should think a little more on the subject. Maybe think why you need to design the re-bar distribution of a concrete framed building intended to use the re-bar in the columns as the down conductors of a lightning protection system?? (Isolation) That at least, should give you some idea of the ohmic value present in the re-bar steelwork of a concrete framed building....

As i said, you don't have the required experience of such buildings (and i'm not trying to be funny either) to make sweeping incorrect statements. Your questions above relate more to domestic, small commercial and small industrial units. Multi story concrete framed and structural steel high rise buildings have a lot more involved to them... Many asspects you can literary throw your BS7671 to one side!!!
My points were made quite correctly and clearly as per usual and referred to installations that probably make up 99% of the subject matter on this forum.

I don't 'form my opinions from a book' I just try to adhere to the regulations that UK businesses have to comply with, again, like 99% of this forum (this sub-forum is entitled electrical wiring, theories, electrical regulations).

There will always be installations that deviate from BS7671 or have additional requirements above and beyond but what is the point of diluting a thread such as this one (a domestic bonding query) with information of absolutely no relevance?

You might as well copy and paste this one;):

"Not the case IQ, I did this massive installation on the moon once and of course it was all earth-free equipotential bonding but I used a 238,900 mile long earth electrode and achieved an Ra of 0.03 Ohms but you wouldn't understand because you only have experience of domestic, small commercial and small industrial units."
 
E

Engineer54

My points were made quite correctly and clearly as per usual and referred to installations that probably make up 99% of the subject matter on this forum.

I don't 'form my opinions from a book' I just try to adhere to the regulations that UK businesses have to comply with, again, like 99% of this forum (this sub-forum is entitled electrical wiring, theories, electrical regulations).

There will always be installations that deviate from BS7671 or have additional requirements above and beyond but what is the point of diluting a thread such as this one (a domestic bonding query) with information of absolutely no relevance?

You might as well copy and paste this one;):

"Not the case IQ, I did this massive installation on the moon once and of course it was all earth-free equipotential bonding but I used a 238,900 mile long earth electrode and achieved an Ra of 0.03 Ohms but you wouldn't understand because you only have experience of domestic, small commercial and small industrial units."

Haha, ...The very point i was trying to make in the first place!!! Your an absolute cracker, i was just pointing out that you can't always state that bonding is not required just because it has plastic incoming pipework!! But you couldn't accept that. The fact you don't have much construction knowledge of these buildings, the points you made were incorrect. Who cares what you were referring too, if your going to make sweeping incorrect statements, then stick to the subject matter being discussed/referred to, not what you want to spin it round too!!

Oh, you most certainly Do form your opinions from books!! But your dead right i don't rely on BS7871, it has more controdictions than enough... See it for what it is ...A Guide!!!!

Time to grow-up IQ, if you can't refer to anything i've asked, but have to resort on, what can only be seen as childish sarcasm, your only showing yourself up, ...certainly not me!!
 

Jimmy Boy

-
Arms
I'm not taking sides but the installation on the Moon..It took me 10 Minutes to get all the Tea out of my keyboard PMP !
J
 
I answer posts with compliant reasoning, not using my answers to inflate an ego, it's called 'on topic posting'. The last bit was mild humour, I knew you'd probably take it as you said, classic ego problem again...

I see your posts time and again making assumptions on members backgrounds and experience levels just because they dare to question you, another classic ego symptom.

As for BS7671 being 'just a guide', it's a 'guide' that UK electrical contractors might someday need to prove compliance in court etc. "In my opinion your honour" doesn't quite cut it in that situation-I'll stick to the book.
 
E

Engineer54

I answer posts with compliant reasoning, not using my answers to inflate an ego, it's called 'on topic posting'. The last bit was mild humour, I knew you'd probably take it as you said, classic ego problem again...

I see your posts time and again making assumptions on members backgrounds and experience levels just because they dare to question you, another classic ego symptom.

As for BS7671 being 'just a guide', it's a 'guide' that UK electrical contractors might someday need to prove compliance in court etc. "In my opinion your honour" doesn't quite cut it in that situation-I'll stick to the book.
Haha, ...still nothing relevant to the thread topic then, just more sarcasm, ...grow-up man!!!

Think your probably talking more about yourself here, ...you really do need to look back at some of your own posts, before throwing stones in my direction. If i have an ego problem, you most certainly do, especially if anyone dares question your posts.

But have no fear, you can count on me questioning your posts, as and when necessary!!! ...lol!!!

And on that note, i'm off to my bed, can't really be arsed with you anymore tonight....
 

Jimmy Boy

-
Arms
Bloody hell just get back with my Pop corn.............

LOL J
 
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #25
ok...the steel (being just there to strut the wooden ceiling beams...is > 999 meg ohms..so doesnt count as ecp for bonding purposes....i had read up, an apparently the nic are saying over 7k ohms is the recommended cut off point however most electricains say 23k ohms....
i do know what bonding is for...(it aint getting to know your clients well) ...gas safe wont allow ANY thing elec conncted in their box...
coz their paranoid...so ok i had to run a difficult route to in inside of the building where the gas main enters....and before any branch offs and connect to the MEt as advised....many thanks everyone...

- - - Updated - - -

ok...the steel (being just there to strut the wooden ceiling beams...is > 999 meg ohms..so doesnt count as ecp for bonding purposes....i had read up, an apparently the nic are saying over 7k ohms is the recommended cut off point however most electricains say 23k ohms....
i do know what bonding is for...(it aint getting to know your clients well) ...gas safe wont allow ANY thing elec conncted in their box...
coz their paranoid...so ok i had to run a difficult route to in inside of the building where the gas main enters....and before any branch offs and connect to the MEt as advised....many thanks everyone...
 

spark 68

-
Arms
Esteemed
Re: The cross bonding at the boiler, as far as I know this was a corgi reg a while back, but has since been discontinued under Gas Safe, although manufacture instructions may take precedence.

One of the many tradesmen I know is gas safe, and they only have to have Part-P limited scope, at least according to my mate.
I know that one or two of the lads on here are heating engineers, I wonder if they would care to comment on this?
 
E

Edd

hopefully people read it befor i changed it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
E

Engineer54

Excellent, so no ufer grounding or extraneous-conductive tied rebar-job on! ;)
Haha, ...Still trying sarcasm because you can't grasp it!!

OK, let's see if you can answer this without the childish sarcasm.... Same situation, services coming into the building replaced with plastic at some stage, but all internal pipework remains metallic but the building in question this time, is a multi story block of say 30 residential flats.

You (or your company) rewire one of these flats, complete with new CU etc. Are you going to bond those services to the flats MET/EMT as usual, or not, ...and why??
 
D

Deleted member 9648

Haha, ...Still trying sarcasm because you can't grasp it!!

OK, let's see if you can answer this without the childish sarcasm.... Same situation, services coming into the building replaced with plastic at some stage, but all internal pipework remains metallic but the building in question this time, is a multi story block of say 30 residential flats.

You (or your company) rewire one of these flats, complete with new CU etc. Are you going to bond those services to the flats MET/EMT as usual, or not, ...and why??
I'll have an effin' go.....

Each flat is a self contained unit with it's own dedicated supply. Therefore metallic services entering a flat are extraneous conductive parts relative to that flat....they may therefore introduce a potential from another source to the flat they are entering. As a result they should be main bonded at the point of entry to each flat to the same flats MET.
 
Wetroom Store - Network Wetroom Suppliers
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members

Reply to new installtion (bonding) in the Electrical Wiring, Theories and Regulations area at ElectriciansForums.net

Wetroom Store - Network Wetroom Suppliers
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members
Top Bottom