Earth grounding cable

[Bobbibee]

Hello
I am wondering if this is safe
My gas box is connected to my electric box via the earth grounding cable which is above ground in a plastic tube. Please see picture below. Should this be under the ground? No other houses on my street have this. Thanks

 

[pcaouolte]

The part that you have shown in the picture looks safe. The plastic tube gives the cable mechanical protection which will help to prevent it from being damaged when you cut the grass.

 

[ericmark]

There is not requirement for it to be buried, and it looks OK to me.

 

[JohnW2]

There is not requirement for it to be buried, and it looks OK to me.

There's nothing wrong with the cable, per se.

However, as for regs regarding main bonding, I suppose it's possible that 'outdoors' may be the "nearest practicable point" to where the pipe enters the property, but I rather doubt that would usually be the case.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

There's nothing wrong with the cable, per se.

However, as for regs regarding main bonding, I suppose it's possible that 'outdoors' may be the "nearest practicable point" to where the pipe enters the property, but I rather doubt that would usually be the case.

Kind Regards, John

Oh my giddy aunt, reminds me of a job we did early 00's a toilet block in a college, it was decreed the water supply pipe required a larger earth bond (~25/35mm²) the water pipe ran from the ground up the outside of the building, probably 4m, then entered. it was enclosed in a wooden box filled with insulation (sort of rubbery foam and declared water resistant so didn't fill with water and freeze). we elected to make the connexion within the insulation, where the existing was terminated, to keep it out of harms way of the young Herberts (a known problem in the establishment). There was maybe 20-30m in the adjacent building in a corridor and plant room and a couple of metres overhead on the same metalwork as other cables and pipes between the buildings.
Then it was inspected by contract manager/consultant or some other title, he insisted the connexion on the pipe had to be indoors and as it wasn't long enough he wouldn't accept a joint. We re-ran the cable at our cost. It entered the building through the same hole as the pipe at about 8ft ceiling level with minimal length inside, certainly well under 1ft.
A few days later we were called back as the cable was overheating. We found no evidence anywhere else on the run of any heat damage but in the toilets the PVC was well and truly melted with a decent black patch on the ceiling above it.
It was concluded this was most likely vandalism and the solution was to make it off within the insulation outside. They tried to get out of paying for the investigation and repair.

It started out as a 'While you're on site can you just...'

 

[SUNRAY]

Hello
I am wondering if this is safe
My gas box is connected to my electric box via the earth grounding cable which is above ground in a plastic tube. Please see picture below. Should this be under the ground? No other houses on my street have this. Thanks

The gas bond is frequently made in the meter box, especially on new builds and of course esential if there is a T-piece within the box and 2 pipes emanating from there.
It certainly doesn't need to be buried but I have to say I think it looks vulnerable and terrible, it appears it's already had to be repaired under the threshold.

 

[sparkwright]

The gas bond is frequently made in the meter box, especially on new builds and of course esential if there is a T-piece within the box and 2 pipes emanating from there.
It certainly doesn't need to be buried but I have to say I think it looks vulnerable and terrible, it appears it's already had to be repaired under the threshold.

It does look cack, somebody hasn't got a bending spring.

Can see why the op has mentioned burying it, anything would look better than that rubbish.

 

[JohnW2]

The gas bond is frequently made in the meter box, especially on new builds ...

It is - and, as I implied, that would even be conformant with the (albeit seemingly in many senses silly!) regs if it could successfully argued that "in the (external) meter box" was the "nearest practicable point" to where the gas pipe entered the (interior of the) property!

Kind Regard's, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

It is - and, as I implied, that would even be conformant with the (albeit seemingly in many senses silly!) regs if it could successfully argued that "in the (external) meter box" was the "nearest practicable point" to where the gas pipe entered the (interior of the) property!

Not sure I understand; are you trying to imply that the point where the pipe enters the premises is not the point of entry?

 

[JohnW2]

Not sure I understand; are you trying to imply that the point where the pipe enters the premises is not the point of entry?

I would have thought that it was implicit in the concept of main bonding that what matters is the point of entry into the interior of the premises, isn't it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

Not sure I understand; are you trying to imply that the point where the pipe enters the premises is not the point of entry?

I would have thought that it was implicit in the concept of main bonding that what matters is the point of entry into the interior of the premises, isn't it?

Kind Regards, John

I'm not sure that I follow exactly what both of you are saying.
The point of entry into the building these days, especially in new builds, is often into a cavity or other inacessible location. Additionally the point of entry may be directly into a T-piece.
Either of those 2 scenarios will result in an advisory of non conformity during a gas inspection. Under both of those situations the closest place for the correct position for the connexion point is prior to the inaccessible location or prior to the T-piece and both of those will be prior to the point of entry of the interior, ie outside. John seems to have agreed with that in post #8 but then contradicted in #10.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not sure that I follow exactly what both of you are saying. The point of entry into the building these days, especially in new builds, is often into a cavity or other inacessible location.

That is the point of entry into 'the fabric of the building'.

However, the (I would say only) purpose of main bonding is to prevent people inside the building touching an extraneous-c-p which, in the absence of bonding, might be at a different potential from that of the electrical installation's 'earth' within the building. For that reason, I would say that the relevant 'point of entry' is where the part enters the interior of the building, regardless of where it enters the fabric of the building.

If a conductive part (externally in contact with actual earth) enters the fabric of the building, but never enters the interior of the building,, then it doesn't need main bonding. That would obviously be silly in the case of a gas or water pipe, but must be common with, say, structural steel.

If one bonds each and every extraneous-c-p within the building, 'as close as practicable' to where it enters the building, then one can be confident that the all of the building's electrical installation (within the building) remains adequately bonded, whereas if the bonding happens outside in the manner being discussed, the adequacy of bonding is at the mercy of any changes to the pipework external to the property - which is why I would personally (in terms of electrical common sense) be more comfortable with each extraneous-c-p being bonded (ideally 'visibly') within the building.

Either of those 2 scenarios will result in an advisory of non conformity during a gas inspection.

'Gas inspections' are, of course, a law unto themselves, particularly since it seems that gas and electrical regulations may sometimes be in conflict. In some senses, I'm a little surprised that gas regulations have not 'banned' the bonding of gas pipes to TN-C-S earths - but, if that had happened, there presumably would have been a major war between the conflicting considerations of the electrical and gas industries

Under both of those situations the closest place for the correct position for the connexion point is prior to the inaccessible location or prior to the T-piece and both of those will be prior to the point of entry of the interior, ie outside. John seems to have agreed with that in post #8 but then contradicted in #10.

No I didn't. In post #8 I wrote (with emphasis added here) that 'outdoor bonding' would be conformant with regs "... IF it could successfully argued that "in the (external) meter box" was the "nearest practicable point" to where the gas pipe entered the (interior of the) property" ... and then in post #10, I merely re-asserted my belief that (in the context of main bonding) it was the point of entry into the interior of the premises that was what 'mattered'.

Where is the alleged contradiction?

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

If one bonds each and every extraneous-c-p within the building, 'as close as practicable' to where it enters the building,

How does one "bond" a damp and therefore electrically conductive stone wall and/or floor to the internal CPC of a building ?

 

[Bobbibee]

The gas bond is frequently made in the meter box, especially on new builds and of course esential if there is a T-piece within the box and 2 pipes emanating from there.
It certainly doesn't need to be buried but I have to say I think it looks vulnerable and terrible, it appears it's already had to be repaired under the threshold.

Yes it looks ridiculous, it Is a 1950s property that was previously owned by a landlord (ha ha) . How do you suggest I get it buried or repaired so that it isn't an eye sore? You can actually see the earth cable peeping out under the box as well.

 

[securespark]

There are two initial choices. Run it outside or inside. I suspect it was done externally so as to avoid damaging the decoration inside.

So that leaves burial, assuming there are no gas, water or waste pipes or electrical cables in the way.