- Joined
- 21 Mar 2024
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
R1+R2 = 0.5 and Ze = 0.3?
I don't know where you got this number from. A parallel path reduces the resistance it doesn't increase it, regardless it's negligible.
Lack of supplementary bonding - what’s the danger ?
- Thread starter equitum
- Start date
Sponsored Links
No I said r1 and r2 0.3 and 0.5 . I didn’t include Ze i forgot. Let me redo the math as yes you are correct 1000 and 0.5 in parallel is still just below 0.5
Last edited:
I’m cooking dinner maybe someone could do the maths. No supp bond. R1 of lights = 0.3ohm R2 of lights 0.5ohm Ze 0.2 ohm. Human of 1000ohm in contact with light fitting during live earth fault and tap. 240V supply. Main bond to water in place. What is fault current, current through human, voltage at touch point of light fitting ?
Using your numbers:
The voltage at the fault is ...143.75V (230 x 5/8)
Fault current is .........................230A ( 230 / Zs of 1Ω)
Current through person is ...143.75mA (143.75 / 1000)
The voltage at the fault is ...143.75V (230 x 5/8)
Fault current is .........................230A ( 230 / Zs of 1Ω)
Current through person is ...143.75mA (143.75 / 1000)
Sponsored Links
I.ve been thinking about this overnight, and wonder whether some of the confusion has resulted from the fact that there are two different issues, which may have been a bit muddled up - and this may also partially explain the seemingly confusing/misleading/incorrect statement I made at the start. I just hope I've got my thinking a bit straighter in what I write below, but I'm sure you will all point out if I haven't 
Using the terminology of our variously diagrams, what we are interested in is the 'touch voltage' (until fault is cleared), namely "A-B", so tjhat, in turn depends upon the potentials (relative to anything, say the MET) at points A and B (expose-c-p and point of contact {tap} respectively).
As far as the potential (say, relative to MET) at point B (point of contact with tap), that is going to be virtually the same as the potential at the point of (SB) bonding of the pipe ('point C'). In turn, the potential at that bonding point is, I would suggest, usually going to be 'not much above MET potential', since, although the pipe will be carrying a portion of the (possibly very high in total) fault current, the CSA of the pipe will be large (much larger than that of the CPCs or SB conductors). Hence I would suggest that, in practice, the potential at C, hence also at B, will usually be 'not much above MET potential', and that that largely remains true regardless of where point C is on the pipe - it is in that sense that I was probably thinking when I wrote that the location of the point of (SB) bonding 'did not matter'.
Moving to the potential at point A (the exposed-c-p) that is not appreciably affected by the location of point C (SB bonding to pipe), per se, being primarily dependent upon the resistance (hence length for a given CSA) of the SB conductor (again assuming that changes in VD along the {large CSA) will not be very significant). It is for this reason that the touch voltage (A-B) will usually be at its lowest when points A and C are as close as possible (hence SB conductor as short as possible) - i.e. when the exposed-c-pis bonded to the nearest possible point on the pipe (regardless of where the 'tap' is).
At first sight, SB would seem to be very simple, logical and 'obvious' ("join all touchable things together so that there can't be appreciable PDs between them") - and that is essentially correct. However, given that the reason for doing this is to reduce/minimise touch voltages, and in view of some of the things you go on to say, I would point out that one can achieve 'similar' simply by reducing the resistance of the circuit's CPC (e.g. by adding a further one in parallel with the existing one) ....
Of course, one consequence of reducing touch voltage (by any method) will be that the magnitude of fault current will increase, perhaps substantially.
It is theoretically possible that exposed-c-p, potential point of contact and MET might be physically all very close one another, but if, for whatever reason, you installed SB in that situation, you wouldn't say that it "wasn't SB" (because it was 'virtually a parallel CPC') would you?
Let's face it, I don't think one can get away from the fact that if you connect a conductor from an exposed-c-p to (anywhere on) a pipe which provides a (I would suggest) very low resistance path to the MET, you will have, in effect, "added a CPC" in parallel with the existing one, even if you choose to call it something else, won't you?
Using the terminology of our variously diagrams, what we are interested in is the 'touch voltage' (until fault is cleared), namely "A-B", so tjhat, in turn depends upon the potentials (relative to anything, say the MET) at points A and B (expose-c-p and point of contact {tap} respectively).
As far as the potential (say, relative to MET) at point B (point of contact with tap), that is going to be virtually the same as the potential at the point of (SB) bonding of the pipe ('point C'). In turn, the potential at that bonding point is, I would suggest, usually going to be 'not much above MET potential', since, although the pipe will be carrying a portion of the (possibly very high in total) fault current, the CSA of the pipe will be large (much larger than that of the CPCs or SB conductors). Hence I would suggest that, in practice, the potential at C, hence also at B, will usually be 'not much above MET potential', and that that largely remains true regardless of where point C is on the pipe - it is in that sense that I was probably thinking when I wrote that the location of the point of (SB) bonding 'did not matter'.
Moving to the potential at point A (the exposed-c-p) that is not appreciably affected by the location of point C (SB bonding to pipe), per se, being primarily dependent upon the resistance (hence length for a given CSA) of the SB conductor (again assuming that changes in VD along the {large CSA) will not be very significant). It is for this reason that the touch voltage (A-B) will usually be at its lowest when points A and C are as close as possible (hence SB conductor as short as possible) - i.e. when the exposed-c-pis bonded to the nearest possible point on the pipe (regardless of where the 'tap' is).
At first sight, SB would seem to be very simple, logical and 'obvious' ("join all touchable things together so that there can't be appreciable PDs between them") - and that is essentially correct. However, given that the reason for doing this is to reduce/minimise touch voltages, and in view of some of the things you go on to say, I would point out that one can achieve 'similar' simply by reducing the resistance of the circuit's CPC (e.g. by adding a further one in parallel with the existing one) ....
As we know, with 2.5/1.5 mm² T+E, if the point of contact with the 'pipe' (point B) is at MET potential, then, with a supply of 230V, the touch voltage will be about 144 V. If, instead of installing 4 mm² SB, one added a 4 mm² 'CPC' in parallel with the existing one (so that one effectively had a 2.5/5.5 mm² cable), that touch voltage would reduce to about 72V. If one added a 6 mm² CPC in parallel with the existing one, then that touch voltage would reduce to about 57.5 V.
Of course, one consequence of reducing touch voltage (by any method) will be that the magnitude of fault current will increase, perhaps substantially.
Indeed, but that;'s not really any more than a matter of words. The SB conductor will achieve what it is designed to achieved, even if essentially the same would be achieved if you did something that you called "adding a parallel CPC". As I said,conductors do not know what they are called, or why they were installed - they just obey the Laws of Physics.
It is theoretically possible that exposed-c-p, potential point of contact and MET might be physically all very close one another, but if, for whatever reason, you installed SB in that situation, you wouldn't say that it "wasn't SB" (because it was 'virtually a parallel CPC') would you?
Let's face it, I don't think one can get away from the fact that if you connect a conductor from an exposed-c-p to (anywhere on) a pipe which provides a (I would suggest) very low resistance path to the MET, you will have, in effect, "added a CPC" in parallel with the existing one, even if you choose to call it something else, won't you?
As above, it is fulfilling the desired electrical role of a SB conductor, even if it could be viewed as a 'parallel CPC'. Again as above, it doesn't know whether you have chosen to call it SB or CPC or why you installed it.
What do you mean by "no longer an effective SB". As above, it will ensure that the potential of B ('point of contact') is virtually same as that of point C (point of bonding), which I'm suggesting will usually be 'not much above MET potential" - which is all one can ask of any SB conductor, isn't it.?
Very interesting.
"All" that is needed to reduce the touch voltage to an acceptable level is to hugely increase the csa (thus reducing the R2) of the CPC.
So - if there is only <50V touch voltage at the fault anyway then no SB would be required.
May I add another question:
Have you thought any further about your "debunking" of 415.2?
In view of what you have written in the post above, could it after all be correct?
"All" that is needed to reduce the touch voltage to an acceptable level is to hugely increase the csa (thus reducing the R2) of the CPC.
So - if there is only <50V touch voltage at the fault anyway then no SB would be required.
May I add another question:
Have you thought any further about your "debunking" of 415.2?
In view of what you have written in the post above, could it after all be correct?
Fair enough, but I strongly suspect that everyone involved in this discussion has 'assumed' that the tap would be the most touchable part. If it was felt that someother part of the pipe were more likely to be touched than the tap, I imagine that those who have said "as close as possible" would then say "as close as possible to that point on the pipe", wouldn't they?
That would, at first sight, seem to be the most logical/obvious. However, as I have said repeatedly, as I see it if, on the sort of basis you suggest, you end up bonding the pipe in a place that involves a longer SB conductor than if you had bonded it somewhere else, you will (despite your well-intentioned approach) end up with a higher-than-necessary touch voltage.
Indeed but, as I've said, if I'm now thinking right, the 'touch voltage' will usually be nearest to zero when the SB conductor is of the shortest possible length, even if that involves bonding the pipe at some distance from what you feel is the 'most touchable point'.
As I said, I also doubt that they would bond all four separately. However, as I illustrated in post #*****, the regs are somewhat lesss than clear about this. The 'general' reg, 415.2.1 (relating to any location, presumably including bathrooms) can be read to require that all (hence individually?) simultaneously-touchable exposed-c-ps must have SB. On the other hand, for just bathrooms (701.415,2) the requirement seems to be only for SB to be applied to each circuit, with no reference to 'simultaneously-touchable' - although t also refers ton"SB per 415.2' !'m therefore less than clear as to what actually is intended for a bathroom!
Indeed - and I have above explained what I believe that means in terms of the optimal place to bond a pipe (which I believe is not necessarily close to the most touchable part)
Again, indeed. As I've recently observed, reduce R2 (e..g. with conductors called 'parallel CPCs", rather than "SB conductors" is a way of reducing touch voltage.
Kind Regards, John
No, it's still wrong isn't it?
The resistance between exposed-c-p and extraneous-c-p isn't a defining absolute value, is it.
It is dependent on the values of the other parts.
This is where I'm getting pretty confused (and it's certainly relating to my "debunking of 415.2") - since, other than for the VD (which I think would usually be pretty small) due to part of the fault current flowing through what could be a short length of 'very large CSA' pipe, there is no electrical difference between installing SB (of a particular CSA) and increasing the CSA of the CPC by that same amount.
However, I think this is where I have to throw a large spanner into the works of the whole discussion, since everything we have been saying (and 'calculating') about touch voltages seems to be based on a false assumption....
... on the basis of a supply which, in the absence of a fault, has an L-MET PD of 230V, we have calculated touch voltages assuming that the L-MET PD remains at 230V during the fault - but this is obviously incorrect, since we are ignoring Ze.
If Ze is, say 0.3Ω and the fault current is, say, 500 A, then, during the fault, the L-MET PD will presumably fall to about 80V so that with 2.5/1.5 mm² T+E the touch voltage (between the exposed-c-p and something connected to MET which did not have fault current flowing through it) would only be about 50V - even without any SB.
Things would admittedly be less 'dramatic' (touch voltages higher than 50V) if Ze and/or fault current were appreciably lower than I have assumed, but I still feel that there must be something fundamentally wrong with what I've just written/suggested, since it would imply that, even in those 'worse' scenarios, one would probably only need a very modest increase in CSA of CPC (or very small CSA SB) to get touch voltages below 50V (rather than a "huge increase in CSA of CPC")
What is wrong with my thinking today? !
I believe it is ... but see my recent post about my current confusion
Exactly
Plus, what is the likelihood of anyone having themselves in parallel, at precisely the same instant as the occurrence of that fault current?
And I’m glad you asked that too - because other than the unlikely scenario that you happen to be in contact with an ECP, let’s say a tap, and an appliance at the exact time it creates a live/earth fault (unless that is you create the fault by touching and disturbance ), albeit for in all likelihood less than 0.4 s , then I’m yet to hear a good reason for supplementary bonding in the first place - disclaimer- in an installation with CPC’s connected and MEB in place and no RCD protection.
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2024
- Messages
- 153
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
Yeah, apart from drowning I'm yet to hear a good reason for not falling asleep in the bath.
What the funk is that supposed to mean ?
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
