ᐅ Equipotential bonding? Grounding ring or foundation grounding system...

b54 schrieb:
Isn’t the ring earth electrode required to be installed anyway according to the updated DIN 18014?

Hi, thanks! I’m not familiar with the DIN standard itself, but it’s quite possible that this is the case (I’ll look it up now).

As I said, personally I believe the ring earth electrode is better, safer, and more durable anyway.

Best regards
Thorsten

PS: Here is an excerpt from online sources (so you are not wrong). Therefore, the electrician involved with the original poster (OP) needs to discuss this with the basement builder and then decide what will be done.

The updated standard takes into account the changed conditions in the construction industry. Nowadays, low-energy building methods have become the standard, where thermal insulation layers—such as perimeter insulation or foam glass gravel around the foundations—prevent direct contact between the foundation earth electrode and the surrounding soil. The same challenge occurs in the case of basements built as “white tanks” using waterproof concrete. This not only provides sealing against pressurized water but also hinders the electrical conductivity to the surrounding soil that is essential for the foundation earth electrode. In both cases, the revised standard mandates the use of a ring earth electrode made of corrosion-resistant stainless steel installed outside the foundation. In addition, it requires a second closed ring as a separate equipotential bonding conductor within the building’s concrete slab, since the closed ring of the ring earth electrode outside only ensures the grounding function. The mesh size of the functional equipotential bonding conductor is now precisely defined— for larger areas to be covered, a mesh size of 10 x 10 meters (33 x 33 feet) is recommended. Furthermore, the equipotential bonding conductor must be connected to the ring earth electrode at least once every 20 meters (66 feet) of the building’s perimeter.

Good day,

Dipol schrieb:

It is surprising that these outdated statements went unchallenged for so long.

That’s what you are here for now; if you also avoid posting links, your contributions will surely be a valuable addition for the forum users.

Regards, Bauexperte

T21150 schrieb:
I am not familiar with the DIN standard. ... As I said, personally I consider the ring earth electrode to be better, safer, and more durable anyway.

Without knowledge of DIN 18014 and the lightning protection standard DIN EN 62305, this is an unsupported hypothesis, unless one assumes sloppy installation with insufficient concrete cover. For distributing lightning currents, surface grounding systems are better.

Since 2007, ring earth electrodes must be made of stainless steel (Niro, V4A), and they are only required by standards for foundations or slabs with insufficient soil conductivity. Where the encircled area is not sufficient, additional deep earth electrodes may be required for both types of earth electrodes. See DEHN Lightning Planner Chapter 5.5.1, Figures 5.5.1.2 and 5.5.1.3.

Unfortunately, even the now superseded DIN 18014:2009-09 is still too new for many construction professionals to know “already.” However, when it was published in 2007, there was as much secondary literature as for the current DIN 18014:2014-03. If there is any standard for which you can rely on extensive secondary literature instead of a VDE subscription or the standard itself, it is DIN 18014.

T21150 schrieb:
PS: An excerpt from the internet (so you are not wrong). Therefore, the electrician of the original poster must coordinate with the builder and then decide what will be done.

The mesh size of the functional equipotential bonding conductor has now been precisely specified—in larger areas to be covered, a mesh size of 10 x 10 meters is recommended.

It is quite unusual for the author to make a slip, but this statement does not comply with the standard.

[QUOTE="DIN 18014:2014-03"]
5.7.2 Combined equipotential bonding system
To reduce electromagnetic interference, a combined equipotential bonding system according to DIN VDE 0100-444 (VDE 0100-444) is to be achieved. For this purpose, in addition to the ring earth electrode, a functional equipotential bonding conductor made of round or strip material is to be provided in the reinforced concrete foundation along the external walls. The functional equipotential bonding conductor must be permanently electrically connected to the reinforcement at intervals of no more than 2 m (6.5 ft) and must have a mesh size of ≤ 20 x 20 m (65.6 x 65.6 ft).
...
Additional measures may be required according to DIN EN 50310 (VDE 0800-2-310) and DIN 62305-4 (VDE 0185-305).[ /QUOTE]

In DIN 18014:2009-09, it was still stated that foundation and ring earth electrodes must have the same mesh size. This sentence was removed in DIN 18014:2014-03. A mesh size of 10 x 10 meters (32.8 x 32.8 ft) applies only to ring earth electrodes used for buildings with lightning protection systems.

However, for example, in server rooms, a mesh size of 5 x 5 meters (16.4 x 16.4 ft) for the combined equipotential bonding system might be appropriate as an additional EMC measure.

Since 2009, foundation and ring earth electrodes may only be installed by licensed electricians or under their supervision and must be documented by measurements and photographs before concreting.

However, as is well known, you can only follow what you know.

Bauexperte schrieb:

That’s precisely why you’re here now; if you avoid adding links, your posts will surely be a valuable contribution for the forum users.

I find anonymous quoting questionable; it seems like taking credit for someone else’s work.

Since I only read the restriction after submitting the previous post, it was not yet taken into account.

Dipol schrieb:

Since 2009, foundation and ring grounding systems may only be installed by licensed electricians or under their supervision and must be documented both electrically and photographically before the concrete is poured.

And how often is this actually done, or where is it stated that this is legally required? Or is it just a typical DIN recommendation?

By the way, in our case, no measurements were taken regarding the equipotential bonding, but since the end of the year, I have an electricity meter installed in the basement. I’m not saying that this is necessarily correct, but it doesn’t seem to be strictly required either...?

This was also one of the reasons why I didn’t want to rely on plastic for my house.

Sebastian79 schrieb:
How often is this actually done, and where is it stated that this is legally required? Or is it just a "typical" DIN recommendation?

By the way, nothing was measured regarding the PA at our place, but I have had an electricity meter installed in the basement since the end of the year. I’m not saying that this is correct, but it doesn’t seem to be strictly required either...?

This was actually one of the reasons why I didn’t want to rely on plastic for my house.

In our case, the master electrician was able to attend "ad hoc" with exactly the mentioned photo documentation and the measurement protocol; otherwise, the utility company would have left without installing the meter.