Stainless Splashback Earth Bonding

[ban-all-sheds]

I agree with bernardgreen, if the stainless will be forming part of the enclosure for electrical accessories it will be an exposed conductive part.
Exposed conductive parts must be bonded.

No.

Exposed-conductive-parts must be earthed, not bonded.

 

[Spark123]

Bonded back to the MET via the CPC, or earthed. Whatever you want to call it.

 

[Mark Elvin]

HI Mark,
Are you going to post a couple of pics when its finished?
Sounds like it will be nice.

I will do, have a delivery date for the cabinets now of 18th November, so should all be done for christmas.

 

[bernardgreen]

No.

Exposed-conductive-parts must be earthed, not bonded.

How about both ?

Earthed by low impedance path to ensure that in the event of a fault there is enough fault current to trip the RCD or ( the MCB if no RCD )

Bonded to other metal work to ensure that what faults there are elsewhere all metal is at the same potential to prevent any danger of elctrical shock to persons who may touch two different pieces of metal at the same time.

Earthing a metal surface via the CPC in the cable is OK until the ( extreme ) fault of cable damage leaving the CPC to the surface in contact with the live conductor in the cable and no longer connected to the earth at the CU. At the time the damage is done the RCD and MCB may trip. They are reset but the fault remains with the ""earthed "" metal now live. Bonding to other earthed items would prevent the RCD and / or MCB being reset. Or if the other surfaces were not earthed bonding would reduce the risk of shock from two metal surfaces in that room being at different potentials.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

isn't there a test to verify whether any exposed metalwork or similar could be defined as an ECP?



(thinks >23000ohm)

 

[bernardgreen]

isn't there a test to verify whether any exposed metalwork or similar could be defined as an ECP?
(thinks >23000ohm)

Probably

But the fault that occurs after the test may at a later date change the status of the exposed metal work.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

True,
It something that should be judged by the competent installer, but how far do you go?
My dining table is glass top with solid steel frame, do i need to bond that?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Bonded back to the MET via the CPC, or earthed. Whatever you want to call it.

I want to call it what it is, and I want everybody to call it what it is.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

No.

Exposed-conductive-parts must be earthed, not bonded.

How about both ?

No.

The splashback is an exposed-conductive-part, not an extraneous-conductive-part, and there's no requirement to apply supplementary equipotential bonding to extraneous-conductive-parts in kitchens.

Earthing a metal surface via the CPC in the cable is OK until the ( extreme ) fault of cable damage leaving the CPC to the surface in contact with the live conductor in the cable and no longer connected to the earth at the CU. At the time the damage is done the RCD and MCB may trip. They are reset but the fault remains with the ""earthed "" metal now live. Bonding to other earthed items would prevent the RCD and / or MCB being reset. Or if the other surfaces were not earthed bonding would reduce the risk of shock from two metal surfaces in that room being at different potentials.

The problem with that argument is that it will lead you to bonding all sorts of metal all over the house..

But the fault that occurs after the test may at a later date change the status of the exposed metal work.

No - it won't change what is or is not an exposed-conductive-part or an extraneous-conductive-part into one which is not or is.