CK Tools :) The professionals choice when it comes to Electrical Tools
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members

Discuss pir code for undersizes water bond in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

S

sid578

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

hi .doing a test on a complex where the tails are 25mm ..main bond 16mm ..but the cable bonding main water is only 6mm..think the tails have been upgraded from original but not water bond (not a easy run) .there are 30 flats in complex ..what pir code would i put fo this
 
Instyle LED Lighting Specialists UK
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members
O

Octopus

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #2
Potentially no code. Can't remember the new reg number but it was 131.8 in the BRB!
 

telectrix

-
Mentor
Arms
Esteemed
what is the earthing? is it TNC-S?
 

telectrix

-
Mentor
Arms
Esteemed
use adiabatic equation to determine the min. reqd. size for main earthing conductor. ( irrespective of the fact that the re is a 16mm there). then the main bonding conductor/s need to be at least 50% of that size.
 
S

sid578

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
its a tnc-s supplied from 60a bs 88 fuse
 

topquark

-
Mentor
Arms
As there's existing bonding, assuming it's metal and extraneous. TNC-S = minimum of 10mm, it is potentially dangerous, so code 2.
 

telectrix

-
Mentor
Arms
Esteemed
code C3, if any, IMO.
 

topquark

-
Mentor
Arms
The reason for the minimum sizes (and why they must be updated before any work is done) is to ensure that fault current can be handed in the event of a fault. It would depend on where the fault was (which circuit/ocpd etc) to actually cause a real issue.

If it isn't potentially dangerous, why would it need to be upgraded before any work was done?
 

ferg

-
Arms
Esteemed
6mm, If no sign of thermal damage then no code. Or just doesn't comply with current regs but is not unsafe.
 
O

Octopus

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
The reason for the minimum sizes (and why they must be updated before any work is done) is to ensure that fault current can be handed in the event of a fault. It would depend on where the fault was (which circuit/ocpd etc) to actually cause a real issue.

If it isn't potentially dangerous, why would it need to be upgraded before any work was done?
Not picking a fight BUT if it was this important why don't those who make the rules, make any attempt to educate the public. More often than not Joe Public thinks that the sparkie is trying it on with unnecessary work.

Joe Public would say his cables on his final ring have 1.5mm earth so what's wrong with his 6mm bonding.
 
S

sid578

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
many thanks guys .the ze was 0.11. just worked it out to 4.6 .. prob put as a c4 just to cover my self
 

telectrix

-
Mentor
Arms
Esteemed
that's 4.62 for the main earthing conductor. you can divide that by 2 for bonding. for pme, though 10mm is specxified, so a C3, IMO. there's no code 4 now.
 
G

Guest55

  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
In comment to telex and top quark i'd split the difference
C3 if undamaged and soundly connected , C2 if heat damaged and badly connected.
This is new diplomatic biff.
;-)
 
Aico 3000 Range
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members

Reply to pir code for undersizes water bond in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification area at ElectriciansForums.net

uHeat Banner - Forum Discount Available
This official sponsor may provide discounts for members
Top Bottom