Discuss Understanding the relationship between TNCS, TNS and TT in the Electrical Forum 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

@Happpyhippydad yes it is safe and needed. What he did was bond the neutral bar to the ground rod. Without it your voltage would fluctuate.
That an earth rod prevents "the voltage from fluctuating" is an explanation I have heard before but have yet to see the the science behind it. The voltage at the rod in a TNC-S system is always dependent on the voltage dropped over the main neutral as the rod is connected in parallel with it.
 
That an earth rod prevents "the voltage from fluctuating" is an explanation I have heard before but have yet to see the the science behind it. The voltage at the rod in a TNC-S system is always dependent on the voltage dropped over the main neutral as the rod is connected in parallel with it.

Megawatt is referring to the USA system where they make the N-E link at the main DB by installing earth rods there.
I think this is sometimes the only N-E link on the system, making it technically TNS, but I may be misunderstanding this.
 
Last edited:
That an earth rod prevents "the voltage from fluctuating" is an explanation I have heard before but have yet to see the the science behind it.

I have heard that too, and asked the same question without adequate answer. The implication is that the PEN is of too high a resistance and the voltage drop in it too severe, but the Ra of the earth rod is somehow low enough to provide an effective parallel path thereby mitigating the voltage drop. Since a typical customer's earth electrode Ra is 100 - 1000 times higher than a typical Ze, the reduction of voltage drop it can provide will be in the order of 0.1 - 1% (of the variation, not the supply voltage). Noting re. voltage drop that in a US domestic installation the PEN is normally a centre conductor between split-phase lines.

If an electrode of vanishingly low Ra were provided, the overall Zpn would be reduced and the voltage drop mitigated, but only because a significant fraction of the load current (and possibly other peoples' load currents) would return via the electrode. We accept that these currents do flow, hence the bonding requirements for TN-C-S, but surely no regs would sanction relying on the electrode as part of the load circuit absent a solid PEN connection, (other than for a SWER supply.)
 
Megawatt is referring to the USA system where they make the N-E link at the main DB by installing earth rods there.
I think this is sometimes the only N-E link on the system, making it technically TNS, but I may be misunderstanding this.
But TNS by definition requires a separate earth from DSO to consumer. Earth rods (while they may be added) are not strictly speaking included in the arrangement.
[automerge]1596187532[/automerge]
I have heard that too, and asked the same question without adequate answer. The implication is that the PEN is of too high a resistance and the voltage drop in it too severe, but the Ra of the earth rod is somehow low enough to provide an effective parallel path thereby mitigating the voltage drop. Since a typical customer's earth electrode Ra is 100 - 1000 times higher than a typical Ze, the reduction of voltage drop it can provide will be in the order of 0.1 - 1% (of the variation, not the supply voltage). Noting re. voltage drop that in a US domestic installation the PEN is normally a centre conductor between split-phase lines.

If an electrode of vanishingly low Ra were provided, the overall Zpn would be reduced and the voltage drop mitigated, but only because a significant fraction of the load current (and possibly other peoples' load currents) would return via the electrode. We accept that these currents do flow, hence the bonding requirements for TN-C-S, but surely no regs would sanction relying on the electrode as part of the load circuit absent a solid PEN connection, (other than for a SWER supply.)
?Agreed
 
Yes, no extraneous in the new shed.
If there was a broken PEN, wouldn't the RCD trip immediately (if there was a rod installed <1667ohms)
as any current would be flowing to earth?
This is a widely held but erroneous belief in the electrical Industry. When the PEN breaks and someone touches bonded metalwork that becomes live, rcd, s will NOT trip. Reason is the fault current flows first through L of rcd and then back out N of rcd and subsequently through the unfortunate individual in contact with bonded metalwork. Quite simply this individual has become the "new neutral" from the rcd, s point of view (though a higher resistance one).
[automerge]1596207125[/automerge]
In most case having additional earthing paths via dedicated rods or by means of metal water pipes, etc, is a good thing. But of course one must never rely on service pipes as an earthing means (unless specifically with the agreement of the pipe owner, but that is not a good path to try and pursue anyway).

If you have RCD additional protection, as pretty much most new circuits will have anyway, then you would become TT in this case and be OK even though faulty and less safe than before. But obviously not if any circuits depend on the OCPD for clearing!

Why less safe? Basically as the RCD is more complex than the MCB so more likely to fail, and you might have a fault that is not RCD protected (e.g. supply line to CU case) that would cause a big BANG! in the TN-S / TN-C-S case but when TT-ing would just roast the earth rod and leave metalwork at a dangerous voltage.
Mayby I misunderstood but how would the earth rod be roasted?. The standard resistance of most rods would not allow that to happen
[automerge]1596207955[/automerge]
I hope that they haven't done this as it is dangerous and illegal to combine the neutral and earth in a consumers installation in the UK.
[automerge]1596117059[/automerge]


Good question, this has the potential to be a very interesting discussion.

The third core is perfectly adequate for earthing (cpc) but not for main bonding if any extraneous conductive parts are present in the outbuilding (based on the assumption that the required size of bond is 10mm)

I assume in this scenario that main bonding is not required at the shed?

Based on these assumptions that earth rod is not necessary.

What is the earth rod actually doing electrically? That depends a little on its Ra, generally its hard to get a low enough Ra that it will make a practical difference to the earthing of a PME supplied installation. You would only start to notice it affecting the Zs of the circuit, and at the origin, if the Ra was a couple of ohms or less.
If the Ra is that low then the fault current that could flow through the rod could be higher than the 4mm CPC could safely handle and it could be non-compliant.

That earth rod, in my opinion, will in itself be an extraneous part because it is introducing an earth potential into the installation. As such it would need to be connected back to the MET by 10mm copper or equivalent.
Based on that logic it is in fact making the installation worse rather than better.

As you probably know I am an advocate of earth electrodes being connected to the MET of all installations with a PME earth, I think 10mm would be the minimum acceptable conductor size for this.
That situation of more current flowing through the rod than the CPC could handle could only occur if the OCPD was incorrectly rated. After all what flows through the CPC must first flow through the L. But in any case 1,2 or even 3 rods will ne er get you you under 1 ohm resistance and its not a situation I could ever envisage occurring. You are correct about the 10mm to the rod. This is the generally accepted size. Most of that 10mm is specified however fir mechanical protection rather that currant carrying capacity. For current carrying capacity a 4 ft rod (the standard in most TNC-S) countries will never require more than a 1.5mm
[automerge]1596208918[/automerge]
True, I should have been precise than answering 'no' to the assumed question about the 10mm minimum.

As you say, in all cases you need to look at the various minimum CPC requirements based on the electrical and physical situation.
Interestingly, your initial comment about "Bonding with phased sized conductors" seemed reasonably to me (still does!). I do not work with TT so I am speculating here. If the extraneous metal part (copper tap) in the shed was turned out to have a reasonably high resistance, would it then be possible to Bond with phase size conductors?
Secondly would it be acceptable practice in UK to insert some plastic pipe in place of the copper and remove this Extraneous part?
 
Last edited:
Mayby I misunderstood but how would the earth rod be roasted?. The standard resistance of most rods would not allow that to happen
Roasted is a bit of an exaggeration, but if you have 230V on the rod with say 30 ohm resistance you have around 1.8kW being dissipated all of the time (mostly in the soil immediately around the rod.

It was more the point that the OCPD won't disconnect even though a significant amount of power is going astray.
 
That situation of more current flowing through the rod than the CPC could handle could only occur if the OCPD was incorrectly rated. After all what flows through the CPC must first flow through the L.

You have missed the point of my post, the point of it was to describe the theory of tjso hypothetical situation. I described a number of scenarios to try and give a full explanation of the theory.

The OCPD will not have any bearing on this, you have again misunderstood my post, plus an OCPD does not monitor the current in the CPC.
In the hypothetical example I gave of the earth rod, which is connected to the CPC of the garage circuit at the garage,being in perfect contact with the mass of earth and a broken PEN occurring. The CPC of the garage circuit will be connecting neutral at the cutout, via the MET, to the earth rod. All of the installation's neutral current will flow through that cpc which may be undersized.

Not also that one of the conditions of this hypothetical situation was that a number of purely resistive loads were connected.
 
Roasted is a bit of an exaggeration, but if you have 230V on the rod with say 30 ohm resistance you have around 1.8kW being dissipated all of the time (mostly in the soil immediately around the rod.

It was more the point that the OCPD won't disconnect even though a significant amount of power is going astray.
?
Roasted is a bit of an exaggeration, but if you have 230V on the rod with say 30 ohm resistance you have around 1.8kW being dissipated all of the time (mostly in the soil immediately around the rod.

It was more the point that the OCPD won't disconnect even though a significant amount of power is going astray.
Agreed?. Third time trying to post this. Has to be 3 words minimum apparently.
[automerge]1596218462[/automerge]
You have missed the point of my post, the point of it was to describe the theory of tjso hypothetical situation. I described a number of scenarios to try and give a full explanation of the theory.

The OCPD will not have any bearing on this, you have again misunderstood my post, plus an OCPD does not monitor the current in the CPC.
In the hypothetical example I gave of the earth rod, which is connected to the CPC of the garage circuit at the garage,being in perfect contact with the mass of earth and a broken PEN occurring. The CPC of the garage circuit will be connecting neutral at the cutout, via the MET, to the earth rod. All of the installation's neutral current will flow through that cpc which may be undersized.

Not also that one of the conditions of this hypothetical situation was that a number of purely resistive loads were connected.
The "Theory of tjso." Not a misprint?
 
Last edited:
It should say this, 'the theory of this hypothetical situation' , its a typo.
You are correct. I misunderstood. I assumed we were talking about TT installation with one 3 x 4mm circuit connected to rod with very low res.

Regarding the bonding of the a, metal water pipe in a shed connected on PME, would 10mm still be required if it was established that the res of the waterpipe was for arguments sake 500ohms...and if so why?
 
Regarding the bonding of the a, metal water pipe in a shed connected on PME, would 10mm still be required if it was established that the res of the waterpipe was for arguments sake 500ohms...and if so why?
Yes.

The simply "why" is the regulations say so.

The actual reason is (I suspect) that it might be 500 ohm when you checked it, and later someone on another supply bonds to a branch of it and you now have sub-1 ohm to path true Earth and the opportunity of a large PME fault current passing that way.
 
Yes.

The simply "why" is the regulations say so.

The actual reason is (I suspect) that it might be 500 ohm when you checked it, and later someone on another supply bonds to a branch of it and you now have sub-1 ohm to path true Earth and the opportunity of a large PME fault current passing that way.
Of course and rightly so. However what I am specifically thinking of is a situation like a shed on private property where for arguments sake the waterpipe is going directly to the house not to the neighbour or street. If there is 4 feet of copper in the ground and the rest is plastic to the house. Basically you now, have an earth rod (500 ohms) and cannot import any significant fault current under a PME fault. This would still require a 10mm bond?
 
Of course and rightly so. However what I am specifically thinking of is a situation like a shed on private property where for arguments sake the waterpipe is going directly to the house not to the neighbour or street. If there is 4 feet of copper in the ground and the rest is plastic to the house. Basically you now, have an earth rod (500 ohms) and cannot import any significant fault current under a PME fault. This would still require a 10mm bond?

Yes it still requires a minimum 10mm bond if that is the required size of bond for the supply, the regulations don't allow for any leeway in this.

To vary the size of main bonding according to individual circumstances would result in quite a few pages of new regulations setting out the calculations, assessments and rules surrounding this. I would imagine it to be a nightmare to regulate for, and a nightmare to actually apply in real life, and almost impossible to confirm at initial verification and periodic inspection.

If you were to allow parts 500ohms or over to have a smaller bond then what about a part at 495ohms? Also what if it is 500ohms in the summer when you test it and this drops dramatically when the ground becomes waterlogged in the winter?

As an electrician you are unlikely to be able to ascertain the length of buried metal, and certainly can't know what changes might occur in the future.

The main bonding sizes are based on a worst case scenario, this covers all other scenarios.
 
Yes it still requires a minimum 10mm bond if that is the required size of bond for the supply, the regulations don't allow for any leeway in this.

To vary the size of main bonding according to individual circumstances would result in quite a few pages of new regulations setting out the calculations, assessments and rules surrounding this. I would imagine it to be a nightmare to regulate for, and a nightmare to actually apply in real life, and almost impossible to confirm at initial verification and periodic inspection.

If you were to allow parts 500ohms or over to have a smaller bond then what about a part at 495ohms? Also what if it is 500ohms in the summer when you test it and this drops dramatically when the ground becomes waterlogged in the winter?

As an electrician you are unlikely to be able to ascertain the length of buried metal, and certainly can't know what changes might occur in the future.

The main bonding sizes are based on a worst case scenario, this covers all other scenarios.
My figure of 500 ohms was arbitrary. My purpose was to use a figure of resistance which would render it impossible to import damaging PME currents (damaging from a heat point of view). And the example was designed more as an exercise in common sense where the contractor on the ground would be allowed to make a decision that would save unnecessary wiring. After all to conclude that a 4ft length of copper pipe, at the end of a garden might someday be dug up and replaced with a metal one is a possibility, but is it likely?

Will the mains water services someday go back to been metallic? possible but is it likely?
These are possibilities rather than practicalities
As you mentioned in another post, we cannot cover every situation.

Regarding the 500 ohms been significantly reduced in resistance due to been "waterlogged". Well as you correctly pointed out the resistance of rods goes up and down all year round. But a resistance of 500 ohms will never be reduced to a few ohms even lying directly in water.
Length of buried pipe is, as far as I am aware not something sparks need to be concerned about. It's just the resistance.
I reread your post regarding the hypothetical situation and it was spot on.
 
I have heard that too, and asked the same question without adequate answer. The implication is that the PEN is of too high a resistance and the voltage drop in it too severe, but the Ra of the earth rod is somehow low enough to provide an effective parallel path thereby mitigating the voltage drop. Since a typical customer's earth electrode Ra is 100 - 1000 times higher than a typical Ze, the reduction of voltage drop it can provide will be in the order of 0.1 - 1% (of the variation, not the supply voltage). Noting re. voltage drop that in a US domestic installation the PEN is normally a centre conductor between split-phase lines.

If an electrode of vanishingly low Ra were provided, the overall Zpn would be reduced and the voltage drop mitigated, but only because a significant fraction of the load current (and possibly other peoples' load currents) would return via the electrode. We accept that these currents do flow, hence the bonding requirements for TN-C-S, but surely no regs would sanction relying on the electrode as part of the load circuit absent a solid PEN connection, (other than for a SWER supply.)
Hi Lucien. Like you I have heard no adequate answer to what to me is currently "a claim" that is yet to be proven and this particular thread has not shed any extra light on the matter. So, a suggestion, let's "pool resources" as it were and see if we can shed a little more light on it.
Firstly I would state
1) that the voltage at the rod is entirely dependent on the voltage across the DSO, s neutral (in a TNC-S system) as it forms a, parallel circuit across it
2) Based on the above I would further state that the rod has no effect on the neutral and thus plays no role in "tying it down to earth potential".

Anything you would add to that?
 
You can't say that you are putting a resistance in parallel with something, and then say that it cannot have any effect on it.
If you fit a local earth electrode and strap it to the DNO's PEN via the MET - then it will have an effect on neutral-earth voltage. Under normal circumstances it'll be a negligible effect as there should be very little N-E voltage present. But should there be a broken PEN core, then the combination of the loads on the 3 phases downstream of the break and the resistances of any other parallel earth paths will determine the N-E voltage in the system.
If the loads are relatively well balanced and/or the earth resistances low then the N-E voltage will be low. If the loads are very imbalanced and/or the earth resistances high, then the N-E voltage will be correspondingly high.
Obviously, from a user safety PoV it would be best if every property had a low impedance load earth electrode, and thus in combination having a fairly hard N-E link regardless of where any PEN break is located. Retrofitting these would, as has been pointed out when it was mooted as a new reg, be difficult and/or costly for many properties as a retrofit - but I would have thought a fairly easy and inexpensive thing to do for new builds (drop some rebar, or copper tape, in the foundations and connect to that).
 
The particular point that Edmond and I had picked up on was a specific statement that has cropped up a few times on the forum regarding USA installations. In cases where a homeowner has reported voltage fluctuations, especially where overvoltage between one hot and neutral of a split-phase installation is occurring and indicative of a high-resistance PEN, a recommendation has been made to check / repair the ground rod connection.

As per my post #24, that seems unlikely to do anything at all, and if it does, is surely concealing the actual fault.
 
As per my post #24, that seems unlikely to do anything at all, and if it does, is surely concealing the actual fault.
Yes and yes.
My understanding of US electrics is that (compared to us) they tend to have many more transformers (each serving fewer properties), each located closer to the properties served. So less opportunities for lost PENs.
 
You can't say that you are putting a resistance in parallel with something, and then say that it cannot have any effect on it.
If you fit a local earth electrode and strap it to the DNO's PEN via the MET - then it will have an effect on neutral-earth voltage. Under normal circumstances it'll be a negligible effect as there should be very little N-E voltage present. But should there be a broken PEN core, then the combination of the loads on the 3 phases downstream of the break and the resistances of any other parallel earth paths will determine the N-E voltage in the system.
If the loads are relatively well balanced and/or the earth resistances low then the N-E voltage will be low. If the loads are very imbalanced and/or the earth resistances high, then the N-E voltage will be correspondingly high.
Obviously, from a user safety PoV it would be best if every property had a low impedance load earth electrode, and thus in combination having a fairly hard N-E link regardless of where any PEN break is located. Retrofitting these would, as has been pointed out when it was mooted as a new reg, be difficult and/or costly for many properties as a retrofit - but I would have thought a fairly easy and inexpensive thing to do for new builds (drop some rebar, or copper tape, in the foundations and connect to that).
You can't say that you are putting a resistance in parallel with something, and then say that it cannot have any effect on it.
If you fit a local earth electrode and strap it to the DNO's PEN via the MET - then it will have an effect on neutral-earth voltage. Under normal circumstances it'll be a negligible effect as there should be very little N-E voltage present. But should there be a broken PEN core, then the combination of the loads on the 3 phases downstream of the break and the resistances of any other parallel earth paths will determine the N-E voltage in the system.
If the loads are relatively well balanced and/or the earth resistances low then the N-E voltage will be low. If the loads are very imbalanced and/or the earth resistances high, then the N-E voltage will be correspondingly high.
Obviously, from a user safety PoV it would be best if every property had a low impedance load earth electrode, and thus in combination having a fairly hard N-E link regardless of where any PEN break is located. Retrofitting these would, as has been pointed out when it was mooted as a new reg, be difficult and/or costly for many properties as a retrofit - but I would have thought a fairly easy and inexpensive thing to do for new builds (drop some rebar, or copper tape, in the foundations and connect to that).
The post we were responding to made the claim that the
You can't say that you are putting a resistance in parallel with something, and then say that it cannot have any effect on it.
If you fit a local earth electrode and strap it to the DNO's PEN via the MET - then it will have an effect on neutral-earth voltage. Under normal circumstances it'll be a negligible effect as there should be very little N-E voltage present. But should there be a broken PEN core, then the combination of the loads on the 3 phases downstream of the break and the resistances of any other parallel earth paths will determine the N-E voltage in the system.
If the loads are relatively well balanced and/or the earth resistances low then the N-E voltage will be low. If the loads are very imbalanced and/or the earth resistances high, then the N-E voltage will be correspondingly high.
Obviously, from a user safety PoV it would be best if every property had a low impedance load earth electrode, and thus in combination having a fairly hard N-E link regardless of where any PEN break is located. Retrofitting these would, as has been pointed out when it was mooted as a new reg, be difficult and/or costly for many properties as a retrofit - but I would have thought a fairly easy and inexpensive thing to do for new builds (drop some rebar, or copper tape, in the foundations and connect to that).
The post I was responding to had to do with how an earth rod at the consumers Installation could prevent the voltage on the Neutral from "fluctuating". While Lucien mentioned that this point has been raised on the forum in connection with U. S. installations, I have also come across it here (R.O.I.).Again I have yet to see an adequate explanation for this assertion.
Think about it. As I mentioned previously the volt drop over the neutral determines the volt drop across the rod, as they are connected in parallel. So logically then, its the neutral that infuences the earth rod and not the other way around.
[automerge]1597089662[/automerge]
The particular point that Edmond and I had picked up on was a specific statement that has cropped up a few times on the forum regarding USA installations. In cases where a homeowner has reported voltage fluctuations, especially where overvoltage between one hot and neutral of a split-phase installation is occurring and indicative of a high-resistance PEN, a recommendation has been made to check / repair the ground rod connection.

As per my post #24, that seems unlikely to do anything at all, and if it does, is surely concealing the actual fault.
Agreed
 

Reply to Understanding the relationship between TNCS, TNS and TT in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock