N

NickD

Just finished some testing at a roughly 30yr old 2 bed flat which has been vacant for a couple of years. Carried out usual 3-stage dead test for socket ring continuity (definitely correctly cross-wired). Only fixed appliance connected to ring (kitchen fan) has been 2-pole isolated out. All inspected sockets appear to be on the ring, no spurs found. Continuity around the ring is near enough what it should be (r1 0.77, rn .85 - aware there is a slight imbalance there - and r2 1.39; it's wired in 2.5+1.5 T&E, 1.39*1.5/2.5 = 0.83). Lowest insulation resistance on the ring is >500Mohm. Ze is 0.1ohm on TNCS. EXpected R1+R2 = (1.39+.77)/4 = 0.54ohms.


Sockets all appear to be original fitment and are a bit rubbish, given that they required a certain amount of coaxing (repeatedly cycling switch on/off, test plug in/out/in/out a few times) to get reasonable readings on. One double socket I actually replaced during testing because one half of the double refused to come below 1ohm R1+R2.


There's a further cluster of three sockets which won't come down below about 1ohm R1+R2 - however if you measure them directly onto the terminals at the rear they read fine, well within 0.54ohm +/- 0.05. figure. Taking the at-front reading gives a Zs of around 1.1ohm and so a fail on 0.4s disconnect time (BS1361 30A, max permitted Zs reading of 0.92). So far, so straightforward. Sockets are pants, fail.


However, if you then do a direct live test for Zs at one of the sockets, it comes in at about 0.45ohms, both on the socket on the front AND (with care and sheathed probe tips) on the terminals at the rear. Now, please put the torches and pitchforks down, because I am not daft enough to rely on this reading to provide a test pass - I know there is a parallel path in the installation, about 0.6ohm, from some point on the socket ring CPC back to the earth bar, because I've measured it. (No other parallel paths down to the mass of earth though, I checked*). So why do I bring this up? Because the point is, when you dead test the socket innards add an extra 0.5ohm, enough to cause a fail; yet when you test live, it's not there, reads 0.45ohm front or rear. ****Why?**** Where's the 0.5ohms gone? (Can it really be down to the metering difference, in the way the meter tests for continuity and Zs? I'm aware they're very different.)


I am in no doubt that I have to fail this - (Ze+measured dead test R1+R2) > Zsmax, end of story. But what am I to make of this 'disappearing' offending extra 0.5ohm? Plus I am concerned that if the customer gets someone else in to confirm, first thing they'll do is Zs on the suspect sockets which will show a pass (yes, a rubbish one unfairly assisted by parallel paths, but then I'm reliant on the tester being on the ball enough to recognise that and not just say "Oh he's talking b****cks, it's fine"). And then they'll think I'm taking the mickey to make up extra work.


Thoughts? Cheers.


(*if you whip the earthing conductor out of the earth bar in the DB and test continuity between earthing conductor and earth bar, there is none [>2kohm], hence there is no other good path to earth in the installation other than the earthing conductor.)
 
I scanned it quickly but you seem to wonder why testing dead (dc low voltage ohm test) adds 0.5 Ohms if done from the front of the socket yet live testing doesn't show the issue ... ...

Poor sprung metal contacts within the socket
Contaminants within the socket especially on the contacts - flashover/arcing damage is easily pick up by the DC test but LV 230v mains won't have any issue overcoming this.


I usually swap any such sockets especially old ones as it can be an indication of damaged/weakened switching contacts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Difference between your 'dead' and 'live' test is about 220V.

When live Zs you are whacking the socket with 230V across it. When using your low resistance ohmeter you hit it with ~10v which wont tickle much?!?!

- - - Updated - - -

Looks like Darkwood beat me to it .......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
I scanned it quickly

You mean it's rambling. Not that I read it after I posted and thought the same, of course. :-)

but you seem to wonder why testing dead (dc low voltage ohm test) adds 0.5 Ohms if done from the front of the socket yet live testing doesn't show the issue ... ...

Poor sprung metal contacts within the socket
Contaminants within the socket especially on the contacts - flashover/arcing damage is easily pick up by the DC test but LV 230v mains won't have any issue overcoming this.

That's what I was wondering as well, is the 230V just blarting its way past contact muck/damage.

I usually swap any such sockets especially old ones as it can be an indication of damaged/weakened switching contacts.

Yeah, that's gonna be my recommendation, and the client can like it or lump it. :-)
 
When testing R1+R2 I don't do it through the socket fronts because of this very reason you forget the voltage is 230v thus the ELI reading is your true indicator, its same with putting your probes on terminal screws as some have a anti-corrosion coating which can ad a false resistance but experience usually give you heads up if readings don't seem to marry up and you can double check these quirks.
 
Depending what instrument you're using for the dead test it's likely to be somewhere between fairly inaccurate and grossly inaccurate for sub 1 ohm readings. I'd take the live test as being far more accurate.
 
When testing R1+R2 I don't do it through the socket fronts

Fair enough if you're doing 100% socket-off inspection for some reason anyway, but if not doesn't that add a great deal of a) time and b) that disassembly we're meant to keep to a minimum?

thus the ELI reading is your true indicator

But it's no good as an engineeringly-correct test result unless you categorically ensure there are no parallel paths...?
 
Depending what instrument you're using for the dead test it's likely to be somewhere between fairly inaccurate and grossly inaccurate for sub 1 ohm readings. I'd take the live test as being far more accurate.

My Metrel says "Oi? You starting, pal?" :-)

Spec says in 0-20ohm range, resolution 0.01ohms, accuracy is +/-(3%+3digits). So around the 1ohm mark it should be accurate to within 0.06ohms? It's (well) within calibration.
 
R1+R2: On an EICR its a fine balance between front testing and rear testing. Clearly the less sockets you disassemble the less chance you have of introducing a fault on re-assembly. I tend to test from the front knowing what reading to get and if I get there or there abouts readings Im happy. Any high readings then become the sockets Im going to inspect/investigate/test again.

EFLI: Provided you have confirmed the Ze is within expected parameters for the system then its immaterial whether there are parallel paths on the 'live' socket Zs test. That is actually what the Zs is in service. You can't account in your testing for whether bonding or earthing fail at a later date but you can sanity check for whether you want to invesigate further by your measured Ze + (R1+R2) value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
how about wiping the breakout box in & out of the outlet a few times before attempting to get an (R1 R2).....it can just be dirty shutters...

but i agree on (R1 R2) V Zs...
 
R1+R2: On an EICR its a fine balance between front testing and rear testing.

Ohhhhh, Matron.

I tend to test from the front knowing what reading to get and if I get there or there abouts readings Im happy. Any high readings then become the sockets Im going to inspect/investigate/test again.

And if it passes on the rear but not on the front, do you call it a pass or a fail? Don't think I can get happy about calling it a pass if I know that actually in use it could fail to meet 0.4s disconnection on a L-E fault out front, within the plug.

EFLI: Provided you have confirmed the Ze is within expected parameters for the system then its immaterial whether there are parallel paths on the 'live' socket Zs test. That is actually what the Zs is in service. You can't account in your testing for whether bonding or earthing fail at a later date but you can sanity check for whether you want to invesigate further by your measured Ze + (R1+R2) value.

But you can't use the live Zs as a true test result for the test sheet, right? It can't give you a pass when the dead test gave you a fail? Because (for example) it might rely on a parallel path within the installation which is lost by later work, e.g. pipework repaired with plastic pushfits? This is me trying to confirm my understanding rather than challenge what you're saying.
 
how about wiping the breakout box in & out of the outlet a few times before attempting to get an (R1 R2).....it can just be dirty shutters...

Done it, lots, and cycled the switch lots. Sat there thinking to myself how there was a market for a plug where the pins were actually finely grade files :-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Done it, lots, and cycled the switch lots. Sat there thinking to myself how there was a market for a plug where the pins were actually finely grade files :-)
You can,just "stripe up" the pins on a spare,decent quality plug top using a fine hacksaw or knife file,and procreate the hell out of your gammy socket...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
But you can't use the live Zs as a true test result for the test sheet, right?
Other than ideally you should do as little 'live' testing as possible (EAWR) why can't you use a 'live' test Zs value? Its a legitimate value in that it represents in-service conditions much more than a low voltage (R1+R2) test? And as far as I'm aware you can use either, measured or tested, or atleast I haven't seen anything that says it has to be a 'dead' test. You can certainly enquire or test for your Ze value!.

It can't give you a pass when the dead test gave you a fail? Because (for example) it might rely on a parallel path within the installation which is lost by later work, e.g. pipework repaired with plastic pushfits?
You may also loose your earth at a later date when the plumber is busy disconnecting/cutting all this green'n'yellow stuff getting in his way! You can only test for the now, not what might or might not happen in the future to the installation. And of course if the bonding has been done right it's within the correct distance of the stop-cock/meter so plastic pipe shouldn't be an issue .... unless they upgrade the mains outside the house!

This is me trying to confirm my understanding rather than challenge what you're saying.
I have rhino skin and never have a problem with being challenged, riddiculed, sworn at, humiliated, bought free curries/beer and given cheap women. If I'm wrong then I've learnt something. No teddies out the cot from me ......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Other than ideally you should do as little 'live' testing as possible (EAWR)

This old chestnut...again.
I'm sure the word is 'working'.
Live testing ain't 'Live working'. No one would ever be able to their job otherwise!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
And if it passes on the rear but not on the front, do you call it a pass or a fail? Don't think I can get happy about calling it a pass if I know that actually in use it could fail to meet 0.4s disconnection on a L-E fault out front, within the plug.

This has been kicked to death in other threads as to where you take your test value ...... but for me, yes I use the result at the front of the socket. If after my inspection/investigation of said naughty socket I can't rectify the fault (e.g. loose terminal, dirty terminal etc ....) then I replace the socket and re-test!
 
This old chestnut...again.
I'm sure the word is 'working'.
Live testing ain't 'Live working'. No one would ever be able to their job otherwise!

I like to think when Im testing Im working ...... but each to their own interpretation of "working" :)
 

Similar threads

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses Heating 2 Go Electrician Workwear Supplier
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Advert

YOUR Unread Posts

Daily, weekly or monthly email

Thread Information

Title
When Is 0.5ohms Not 0.5ohms?
Prefix
N/A
Forum
UK Electrical Forum
Start date
Last reply date
Replies
83

Advert

Thread statistics

Created
NickD,
Last reply from
NickD,
Replies
83
Views
8,979

Advert