Supplementary Bonding

newkidSB · 19 Dec 2008

Hi..

Recently completed my Part P 3 months ago and now doing some work around my house, just a question to all you Guru's out there...

Do we need to apply supplementary bonding to pipes in the kitchen, bathroom and around the boiler and immersion tank..

Thanks

Spark123 · 19 Dec 2008

Kitchen = no requirement to supplementary bond
Bathroom = sometimes there is a need to supplementary bond - have a read of the IEE regs section 701
Boiler = unless the boiler manufacturer specs it, there isn't a requirement to supplementary bond.

newkidSB · 19 Dec 2008

Thanks spark123, forgot to mention the all circuits are on a dual RCD CU, just another thing, I'm thinking of purchasing a DI-LOG for testing.. your thoughts appreciated...

davy_owen_88 · 19 Dec 2008

Not trying to be an ass here, but what the hell were they teaching you on the Part P course?! If you completed it within the last 3 months as you stated, they should have been teaching you the 17th edition and I would have thought the main changes between 16th and 17th would have been high up on the syllabus? As they haven't taught you when it is necessary to add supplementary bonding within a bathroom, and failed to mention that supplementary bonding in the kitchen hasn't been required for many years then I'm wondering what other vital info they haven't taught you before giving you the green light to start calling yourself an electrician.

Just to clarify, this isn't a rant at you, but rather the terrible standard of the course you must have sat.

As Spark123 has given you the answers I won't repeat them, but I would recommend you go for something better than a Di-Log if you intend to do electric work as your trade. Megger and Fluke come highly recommended, but I haven't heard a good thing said about Di-Log from anyone in the trade which says alot.

Spark123 · 20 Dec 2008

30mA RCD protection of all final circuits is one of the items on the list, disconnection times being met is another (never quite figured that one out as if all circuits are RCD protected then disconnection times aren't really going to be an issue), extraneous conductive parts need to be effectively connected to the PEB - I have tried to explain it here: //www.diynot.com/wiki/electrics:supbond17th
As for testers, Megger comes top of the list. I currently have a MFT1552 which is good.

ban-all-sheds · 20 Dec 2008

Not that I want one, but I saw the Martindale VR2240 advertised recently - anybody know what it's like?

newkidSB · 21 Dec 2008

Thank you for your help.. Funny thing was when I attended the course it was under the 16th edition, it was only a couple of days later the 17th kicked in.. hey ho .. my bad luck..

is there a site where I can get an update on the 17th edition.

Thanks.

RF Lighting · 21 Dec 2008

newkidSB said:
is there a site where I can get an update on the 17th edition.

Have a look here

maltaron · 21 Dec 2008

Just read your link. spark123, confused about one thing. "can be protected by a RCD but not RCBO" I allways thought an RCBO was an RCD.

Spark123 · 21 Dec 2008

I take it you mean the "automatic disconnection problems" type supplementary bonding - this is slightly different to the local supplementary bonding found in bathrooms.
This one is where ads cannot be acheived hence the product of the resistance of the bonding between the item to the MET and the current required to disconnect the device in the given time should not exceed 50V (or sometimes 25V).
In order to get the resistance between said item and MET down, supplementary bonding may be applied.
As RCBOs use electronic RCDs they require somewhere in the region of 50v for the electonics to work. In a fault situation this voltage may collapse rendering the RCD useless, think the notion came from a guide to the 16th edition by Cook.

matt1e · 21 Dec 2008

maltaron said:
Just read your link. spark123, confused about one thing. "can be protected by a RCD but not RCBO" I allways thought an RCBO was an RCD.

It is

it is also an over current protective device

RCD+MCB =RCBO all rolled into one

can be protected by a RCD but not RCBO"

Thats a new one on me too??? I thought they couldn't be used as the sole method of protection against direct contact not indirect
but it does make sense I suppose
if the rcd and mcb are in the same device and there is no supplementary bonding and conditions to disconnect are not met I think I would prefer two physically separate protective devices for protection

matt

diynot

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

Supplementary Bonding

Similar threads