Found While Searching The Net

Joined
11 Jan 2004
Messages
43,864
Reaction score
2,870
Country
United Kingdom
Found this on another forum while researching MicraMary's issue:

Just a few thoughts on the dreaded earthing systems - can anyone see any problems with this?

TNCS - generally hated as if the neutral is lost any load in the circuit routes the live back to the earth terminal making every metal object live. The RCD will have no effect on this.

TT - hated by some as if there is a N-E fault on the system the return current to the RCD is shunted by the earth rod impedance. Will not therefore trip correctly in fault conditions - but will trip when the imbalance is greater than 30ma - e.g. current taken 30A - 30mA shunted to earth via rod - hence trip.

Thought - add an earth rod to a TNCS system - see attached diagram.

If neutral is lost at prior to the RCD and a fault occurs after the RCD then RCD will trip as >30mA taken via the earth rod - removes objection to TNCS

If N-E fault occurs after the CU current is shunted across the RCD - approx half flowing through the RCD, half across it. Any small appliance in circuit (>60mA) would cause a trip- so hazard is identified before any fault can cause injury - removes objection to the TT system.

Arguably this is mixing earthing systems - but in reality I can't see what the difference is with this and bonding to a metal pipe which goes to ground.

Overall - I think that the TNCS is probably a better earthing system than TT provided it is all RCD protected and any bonding provides a route to ground.
 
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Sorry to disappoint, guys, but it's neither of those two!!
 
I can see a little of what he is getting at. Where TN-C-S is PME there is not too much of a problem. Although lost of neutral can cause the voltage to rise and fall the amount it can rise and fall is limited by the path through the ground and also the same with the voltage gradient as long as there are enough earth rods the voltage gradient is limited.

It is where the TN-C-S is lacking connection with the earth where voltages can vary along the whole 0 to 400 volt range. Also where the connection is not good enough to earth the currents involved can cause the connection to fuse where this connection is for example a gas pipe with some really dramatic results.

Where a group of houses all have gas and water bonded then loss of the neutral is shared between houses but where this is not the case and just one house has extraneous-conductive-parts (not called an earth rod when a TN-C-S system) then all the current can try to return to the sub-station through this one connection.

I saw the results of this where a radio amateur had a supply put to his shed and the electrician had bonded the radio earth (4 rods linked with tape around his garden) to the TN-C-S earth using a 4mm sq earth cable which ended up as copper balls on the ground when a workman's digger hit the cable.

Had the supplier used PME there would not have been a problem but after the fault site there were no earth connections to the system.

However I am assured this is unusual and very unlikely to be repeated.

As to the milliamp current required to trip the RCD I just can't follow his reasoning. With a TT system neutral and earth are likely at a different potential so earth - neutral faults are more likely to trip a RCD but where the 60ma comes from I am at a loss.

He fails to mention the problem with erosion I have seen a whole estate where the bottom of each down spout has been damaged in this way.

Also with a TT system there can be a different potential on each property so where houses are very close touching two down spouts could give one a shock under fault conditions. The same where TT and TN-C-S are next to each other and I question having electric cars and caravans parked next to a house with a different earthing system.

We are only required to have 200 ohms (Note 2) where we have RCD protection and we totally rely on the RCD tripping. If for any reason it does not trip the voltages could be quite large. To ensure a 100A supply would not lift the voltage above 50 volt would need 0.5 ohm which one is unlikely to get even just 13A needs 3.8 ohm and when I had to install a series of earth rods I needed between 3 and 8 rods at 1.2 meters to get 8 ohms so for domestic to get 50 ohms we are doing well.

So the only practical way to remove the problem with premises which are close to each other not having a lethal voltage between them is to bond the premises together which is what happens with the TN system.

Reach is shown as 1.25 meters (fig 417) so at 400 volt max between houses and 50 volt accepted as extra low voltage then premises should be 10 meters apart if not having same earth to ensure no more than 50 volt and with 240 volt i.e. garden shed looking at 6 meters. OK unlikely to have full 400 or 240 volt so maybe could reduce that a little but I am sure you can see my point.

To conclude both TN-C-S and TT have problems so unless we went to TN-S then it is down to risk assessment and to my mind the risk with TN-C-S is less than we TT so where we can TN-C-S would seem the answer.

However I am looking at a standard house. Mobile homes and like where there is a large amount of bonded metal work exposed to touch outside would come out completely different with a risk assessment.

I note with caravans and boats TN-C-S is not allowed and will also have to double up on RCD's so two need to fail however how one can test the caravan RCD I don't know as to test one would have to stop the site RCD tripping. So a non RCD protected socket would be required to test caravans and boats. May be the built in test button is enough when two RCD's are in series?
 
I can see a little of what he is getting at. Where TN-C-S is PME there is not too much of a problem. Although lost of neutral can cause the voltage to rise and fall the amount it can rise and fall is limited by the path through the ground and also the same with the voltage gradient as long as there are enough earth rods the voltage gradient is limited.
I think those who have concerns are contemplating the very rare scenario of the location of the neutral fault being such that, as seen from the viewpoint of the consumers affected, the TN-C-S supply is no longer (appreciably or at all) "PMEd".

Kind Regards, John
 
He wants to turn PME into PM+1E.
Sure, but PME and P(M+1)E are the same thing - 'M' can have any value.
Fair enough, if you want to have it that way, he wants to take his PME supply and increment the "value" of M by 1.
Yes, that's another way of putting it - but to what end (the exercise, not the wording!)? Sure, it means that one will still have 'an earth' if a supply fault is such that one is cut off from all the supply's M earths (left with just one's additional one) - but in the 'bad case' scenario/location of a supply fault that some people seem to fear, that is going to make precious little difference to anything.

Kind Regards, John
 

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
Back
Top