GSW vs GSU Differences, PEN Earthing Point, 1970s Block Wiring, 2x2.5mm² Cable

Where does it say that the split point must be grounded? I do not know...
I believe that the installation should be done correctly along with equipotential bonding. Should an acrylic bathtub be covered with equipotential bonding? No, but the equalization wire must be connected. If someone is modernizing the installation, why not replace this cable to the 2x switchgear?

The multi-threading of the topic forces me to write OT.

How to "discover the wheel" (O) in the profession of an electrician - repeating the basic knowledge in a circle, complementing its gaps.
Maybe it's enough to repeat the definitions.
Students learn according to lemniscate (∞ - consider a detail related to basic knowledge (they use a bicycle).
RCD is not related to TN|TN-C. Indirect measures should be used - part of the circuit should be converted to TNS|TN-CS.

I wish you a doctorate - a sign of a rosette - the ability to consider many details at the same time, related to general knowledge.

If the TN-C network system is used in the block, then when replacing the residential installation, the PEN cable (even though such a small cross-section is not your fault) is connected to the PE bus, from the PE bus to the N bus (or, alternatively, immediately to RCD and the rest of the installation are made as TN-S, in accordance with applicable standards and engineering knowledge.Equipotential bonding is made with a conductor laid straight from the PE busbar in the switchgear, of course, only if the building is equipped with GSW. of course, if possible, also change the entire power cable going to the switchgear.

This is a brief and general description ;)

lordpakernik wrote:

Nowhere does it say it has to be grounded. But you won't deny that the PEN chapter should be combined with the GSW?

The PE conductor should be connected to the GSW, not the distribution point. The chapter point is just one of the options, which is not always optimal and is certainly not mandatory.

lordpakernik wrote:

Why do many people say that the PEN section in WLZ ZE and pulling a 5-wire cable from the WLZ to the house switchgear (in my opinion it should always be 10mm^2) is not advisable?

Because it has no justification and is economically unprofitable.

I will only add that making equalizing connections has been obligatory in Poland since 1968.

No, because this one will also be replaced in the future.

Oh buddy, first you write about a multi-family building and then you jump to a single-family one.

Of course, the PE wire led from the connector to the building where the grounded GSW should be made does nothing but unnecessary expense.

This issue has been discussed many times on all thematic forums.

Two mistakes.
One is the failure to perform GSW, and the other is the unacceptably small cross-section of the PEN vein.
So it will be better for you if you change "advisor".

lordpakernik wrote:

Today I was talking to an electrician friend... what do you think?

We think you don't talk to Him anymore!!! What WLZ is supposed to be is defined in the WT and not that it depends on the investor's "cash".

Hello

We always supply building connections with a 5* cable.... - one of the reasons, if there is a change in the power supply on the energy side, the investor will not be sorry that we did not inform him about this possibility.
We make in different cities and everywhere the same fuss with the number of wires, so as not to spoil our nerves in talks with the inspector, investor, power industry, we announce at the very beginning that we lay a 5-wire cable.
As they say, the head does not hurt from the sanctuary - in this matter it works
greetings

lordpakernik wrote:

What hurt me was that he said that if the power granted by the ZE is not large, it gives a cable with a diameter of 4x6 or 5x6. In my opinion it should always be 5x10mm^2 what do you think?

In the case of 5 * 6 - it's ok, 4 * 6 is not according to the standard.
I believe that the provision of min. 10mm for PEN is a sick notation, everyone is now clinging to it, and the reality is that 80% of installations do not meet this requirement. For me as a user, it is important whether the SWZ will work at the end of a properly made circuit, even with a 1.5-way cable, with a badly made installation, even 16mm² will not protect me

kiss

lordpakernik wrote:

Yes, I understand, but in my opinion there should always be 10mm^2 from the WLZ to the switchgear.

Wlz - internal power line, the veins of which may have a cross section of ... .
Lz - the power line connecting the network with RB|RG|ZK|ZE must have a PEN conductor with a cross-section of ≧10mm² Cu|≧16mm²Al.
If the PEN continuity is continued in the WLZ and there is a GSU in the facility - the PEN should have a statutory cross-section.

kasprzyk wrote:

I believe that the provision of min. 10mm for PEN is a sick notation, everyone is now clinging to it, and the reality is that 80% of installations do not meet this requirement. For me as a user, it is important whether the SWZ will work at the end of a properly made circuit, even with a 1.5-way cable, with a badly made installation, even 16mm² will not protect me

kiss

Because 80% of the installations were made before the introduction of this provision, and as you know, the law is not retroactive. On the other hand, installations made after the introduction of these regulations must have a PEN with an appropriate cross-section and this is a correct requirement. The fact that many old installations pose a very high risk of breaking the PEN conductor (especially with incomparably higher loads that currently occur) - and thus poses a very high risk to users - does not mean that new installations should be botched.
The installation is to meet ALL safety requirements and there are no half-measures such as "I prefer to have SWZ provided than an appropriate cable cross-section".

Miniax wrote:

... On the other hand, installations made after the introduction of these regulations must have a PEN of the appropriate cross-section and this is a correct requirement. ...

ok, just small, short, justification please - why should PEN be min. 10mm and not 16, 25 or 6mm, why is it a correct requirement according to you, what is it dictated by?

kiss

kasprzyk wrote:

ok, just small, short, justification please - why PEN should be min. 10mm, not 16, 25 or 6mm why is this a valid requirement according to you, what is it dictated by?

But it can be 16 or 25 mm². And he often does.
And the minimum of 10 mm² is the minimum resulting from several things. First - mechanical strength. Second - note that often there is no security between wlz and the network. And ZE don't have bug fix teams anymore. For this reason, electric power plants replace cables with insulated wires during modernization. It's for something, right?

retrofood wrote:

kasprzyk wrote:

ok, just small, short, justification please - why PEN should be min. 10mm, not 16, 25 or 6mm why is this a valid requirement according to you, what is it dictated by?

But it can be 16 or 25 mm². And he often does.

I wrote min. - short for minimum
kiss

Quote:

And is there any difference with the PEN distribution at home and with the ZE connector when it comes to equalization currents?

Yes, we wrote about it quite recently here:

jarecki 86 wrote:

Quote:

And is there any difference with the PEN distribution at home and with the ZE connector when it comes to equalization currents?

Yes, we wrote about it quite recently here:

Not only here.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the meaning of the word: equipotentialization .
A long, difficult word, but it's worth finding out what it means.

retrofood wrote:

And the minimum of 10 mm² is the minimum resulting from several things. First - mechanical strength. Second - note that often there is no security between wlz and the network.

Bronek22 wrote:

Unfortunately, Kasprzyk is right. In addition, I will write that this recipe is thoughtless and stupid, written by a layman. I'm surprised that colleague Miniax as an electrician supports it.
Why do I find this recipe mindless and stupid?
Because the cross section is not an electrical parameter. Only mechanical.
Based on the cross-section alone, we will not specify any parameters.
Resistance would be sensible, but it is not written about.
Buddy Miniax, show at WLZ l= 10m how the installation parameters will differ at WLZ 6 mm2 and 10 mm2 !!!!!
The only justification is that a meaningless standard applies to us.
Just like grounding batteries on PVC - in the past.
Fortunately, the use of standards is optional. And there is no obligation to apply the standard.
In this case, the standard is not a "dupprotector".
Bronek

Of course your friend is right. However, the mechanical parameter, which in this case is the cross-section of the cable, has a large impact on the failure-free operation of the installation. Standards should include all parameters (regardless of whether they are electrical, mechanical or other parameters) that may have a significant impact on the failure-free operation of the entire installation and on the safety of use. The introduction of such a requirement regarding the cross-section of the PEN conductor minimizes the possibility of its damage (mainly mechanical and thermal), and thus prevents the negative consequences that could occur in the event of its interruption. That's why I posted a quote from my friend retrofood earlier, which I thought cleared things up.