Cross Bonding of main bonding gas and water on PIR

[danrich123]

I've done a few PIR's with the following Bonding arrangements (mainly on flats for some reason), just for my clarity what is acceptable and what code would go against it.

1. Water bonded in 6mm to CU continuous cable linked to Gas Pipe - install approx 1985
2. Gas Bonded in 10mm to Earth Bar, Separate 10mm Cable from Gas Earth Clamp to water pipe - Approx install 2005
3. Gas Bonded in 10mm to CU, Separate 10mm Cable from gas Earth Clamp to water pipe - Approx Install 2010
4. Water bonded to CU continuous link to Gas in 10mm - Approx Install 2010

Cheers

 

[dingbat]

Sorry, I can't respond to this post because there is no such thing as 'cross bonding'.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

There is.

You're slightly cross already.

 

[ebee]

 

[dingbat]

 

[ebee]

The date of install is completely irrelavant.

If you are doing the PIR then do you really need to ask the question?

If it's PME then should be 10mm min anyway,
6mm on TNS (or TT) you might decide is allowable - do the adiabatic.

Does split or continous actually break a reg as such or is it just advisable ?

 

[danrich123]

Perhaps I should rephrase my question, as it seems like people can be a little picky when certain words are used.

When applying main equipotential bonding of extraneous-conductive-parts to the main earthing terminal as per 411.3.1.2, 544.1 etc. can one bonding conductor be used to "bond across" extraneous-conductive-parts such as water and gas installation pipes.

I cant find anything in the regs to say you cant, however, from what I have been "told" in the past... its only ok if its one continuous link, if cut/split it does't conform (however is not desirable to use one conductor)

I put the installation dates down for a couple of reasons...the 1985 one, the bonding conductor size was 6mm (all installs were tncs) and would be 10mm now (think it was around 1982-85 when it changed from 6mm to 10mm, but i'm guessing), i would normally put a code 4 - would this be right.

the 2005/2010 ones were installed reasonably recently and if any of the situations were not allowable, there would be a case to go back to the original installer to correct the work...i put code 4 on 2 and 3 and no code on 4...but was unsure at the time...hence why i'm asking the question now.

cheers

 

[1john]

There is nothing wrong with installing main equipotential bonding from the MET to a service via another service.

 

[JohnD]

I've head that story about "one continuous length" but I don't know where it comes from.

 

[riveralt]

I've head that story about "one continuous length" but I don't know where it comes from.

Because the great God Wiki has spoken and it shall be so

//www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:main_equipotential_bonding

 

[JohnD]

but where does "Main protective bonding conductors should be continuous from the MET to the point of bonding without any breaks. They may however be looped between services providing the conductors remain unbroken." come from, meaning that you can't run a 10mm to a water pipe, then put another 10mm from that point to the gas pipe?

 

[ricicle]

I am sure it comes from NIC guidance. (I might be wrong) As far as I am concerned, anyone who is removing a connection should be competant enough to ensure that continuity remains to the other connection.
On the larger size bonds to water and gas that I have done I have no problem in having seperate lugs on the wires and bolting them onto the clamp as it would require considerable effort to break the connection. (It being nigh on impossible to form a continuous loop ! )

 

[Spark123]

I'm pretty sure it is a take on one of the regs regarding maintenance, it is certainly taught on the C&G2391 course and is one of the faults for you to find on the test board (two lugs connected to a BS951 clamp). I'll have a peep at the BRB later and see if I can find it.

 

[riveralt]

I'm pretty sure it is a take on one of the regs regarding maintenance, it is certainly taught on the C&G2391 course and is one of the faults for you to find on the test board (two lugs connected to a BS951 clamp). I'll have a peep at the BRB later and see if I can find it.

The lecturer was challenged on our 2391 course that this was not in the BRB - he was unable to find it.

Best I can come up with is that it is an advisory in
bs 7430 code of practice for earthing - but since I haven't got that book I cannot confirm.

 

[ricicle]

I'm pretty sure it is a take on one of the regs regarding maintenance, it is certainly taught on the C&G2391 course and is one of the faults for you to find on the test board (two lugs connected to a BS951 clamp). I'll have a peep at the BRB later and see if I can find it.

I find that a bit absurd seeing as 2391 is based on I+T to BS7671, yet there is no mention of the 'unbroken conductor' in the regs.