Couple of testing questions ?

[Mikegh]

Apologies gone a bit rusty on this stuff:

1) (Max) Resistance of protective conductor:


An Installation with a sub-board all pvc wiring

Is the max protective conductor resistance = the resistance of the protective conductor on the submain + the highest resistance CPC on the sub-board

Above in steel with parallel paths, structural steel etc.
How is the max protective conductor resistance measured here ?
I know you can work out the earth conductor resistance using L-N loop tests but what figure is recorded


2) Can someone explain simply the L-E loop test for ring circuits
This is used to measure R2 ?

Cheers

 

[timhoward]

I admit I'm a bit confused.
1) - What are you trying to fill in, where? Are you trying to arrive at a value for the R2 column for a circuit fed from the submain consumer unit?
And are your two questions:
a) should you add the submain's own CPC resistance
b) how do you measure if the CPC is utilising steel conduit/containment?

2) Are you meaning the figure of 8 test (dead test), which is used to measure R1+R2? Or a loop test (live test) to obtain the measured Zs?

 

[pc1966]

2) Can someone explain simply the L-E loop test for ring circuits
This is used to measure R2 ?

If you are checking just at the CU you would measure the loop resistances of the ring:

• r1 = live to live
• r2 = cpc to cpc
• rn = neutral to neutral

Typically you should see that r1 and rn are almost the same, and r2 is in the ratio for the type of cabling used. For example, in the UK 2.5mm T&E has a 1.5mm CPC so the resistance ratio should be around 2.5/1.5 = 1.67

For example, if you measured r1 = rn = 0.6 ohm then you would expect r2 to be 0.6 * 1.67 = 1 ohm. Of course it might be lower due to parallel earth paths, and the odd 0.05 difference is not unreasonable when comparing due to meter accuracy, joints, etc.

In terms of the equivalent R1+R2 that is (r1+r2)/4 since the worst-case location for fault impedance on the RFC is the furtherest point, and at that point each 'leg' has (r1+r2)/2 due to being half way round the ring, and as they are in parallel there it is further halved leading to (r1+r2)/4.

 

[timhoward]

What @pc1966 said, in video form:

 

[pc1966]

The "figure of 8" test mentioned by @timhoward is more work, but equally more thorough, and typically used for initial verification.

Here you link the ring ends at the CU with L1 - CPC2 and L2 - CPC1

Then you measure the L-E resistance at each socket outlet, and each measured value is the R1+R2 value and they should all be identical (to measurement accuracy) and at (r1+r2)/4.

But what this test also verifies is socket polarity (very important for safety as only fused in the line path) and if there are any extra resistances, for example due to a spur or just a dodgy socket. Because of the test cross-linked ring structure each socket should measure the same, so it is easy to spot even a small extra resistance that should not be there.

So while it is more time consuming to do, it also provides exceptionally good fault coverage (more so if you can be bothered to do the same for L&N to verify neutral path resistance).

 

[Deleted account]

Are we talking earthing conductor, or bonding conductors?

 

[Mikegh]

I admit I'm a bit confused.
1) - What are you trying to fill in, where? Are you trying to arrive at a value for the R2 column for a circuit fed from the submain consumer unit?
And are your two questions:
a) should you add the submain's own CPC resistance
b) how do you measure if the CPC is utilising steel conduit/containment?

2) Are you meaning the figure of 8 test (dead test), which is used to measure R1+R2? Or a loop test (live test) to obtain the measured Zs?

Max resistance of protective conductor in the installation

Maybe they don't have that on the UK sheets, anyway it's yes to A and B

 

[Mikegh]

The "figure of 8" test mentioned by @timhoward is more work, but equally more thorough, and typically used for initial verification.

Here you link the ring ends at the CU with L1 - CPC2 and L2 - CPC1

Then you measure the L-E resistance at each socket outlet, and each measured value is the R1+R2 value and they should all be identical (to measurement accuracy) and at (r1+r2)/4.

But what this test also verifies is socket polarity (very important for safety as only fused in the line path) and if there are any extra resistances, for example due to a spur or just a dodgy socket. Because of the test cross-linked ring structure each socket should measure the same, so it is easy to spot even a small extra resistance that should not be there.

So while it is more time consuming to do, it also provides exceptionally good fault coverage (more so if you can be bothered to do the same for L&N to verify neutral path resistance).

Yes those are the tests and im familiar with the L-N setup
So as in the L-N the readings are the same at each outlet for L-E

I don't quite understand this (r1+r2)/4

What is the formula for r2 using this method ?


Edit posted this late , I'll read back over the last few posts
Cheers

 

[Mikegh]

So how is the r2 measured on a board with parralel paths on the final circuits ?

Cheers

 

[timhoward]

( Electrical Safety and Testing Standards - RECI Presentation - https://analytical-testing.ie/blog/electrical-safety-testing-standards/ )

I've had a read through your tests, and they are basically the same idea as what we have to do.
All I can say is that if it were a UK sheet, the sub main CU get's it's own sheet, and you would record the earth loop impedance at the incomer of the sub main DB at the top of the sheet.
Then for each circuit you would record either just the resistance of the circuit CPC (R2) on the circuit itself, or the combined resistance of the Live and CPC (R1+R2).
Then we also note the Zs which is the total, either measured like your test 8 "Line/Earth fault loop impedance" or calculated by adding the incomer impedance to the R1+R2.
I've never seen one of your test sheets though so hopefully someone local can comment!

So how is the r2 measured on a board with parralel paths on the final circuits ?

If the CPC is not a wire, then the R2 can be measured with a long wander lead, or a temporary link made at the circuit end and R1+R2 measured at the consumer unit. Just the same as if it were a wire really.
Disconnecting bonding and incoming earth at the sub-main (obviously with it isolated) can remove the parallel paths from the measurements.

 

[pc1966]

So how is the r2 measured on a board with parralel paths on the final circuits ?

It is unusual to see a RFC with much in the way of parallel paths, unless metal-clad sockets on a metal building, etc, or perhaps conduit system that has mounting also on metal structures. In such cases R2 is likely to be far lower than R1 and you circuit zs domainated by the cable R1 and (maybe) supply Ze.

It is unusual to need R2 on its own, so if you do the "figure of 8" test with the links at the board (and not linked to the MET there) then your range of R1+R2 measured at the sockets gives you a worst-case value to get max Zs (from Ze + R1 + R2) to compare to the OCPD limiting Zs for disconnection time.

But you can always estimate R2 as (r2)/4 for the same reasons. However if you are unsure of the pysical layout or can't unlink CPCs at the board (e.g. conduit system, etc) then you can measure your worst (R1+R2) at the various sockets and estimate R2 by subtracting the R1 = (r1)/4

 

[Mikegh]

View attachment 93697
( Electrical Safety and Testing Standards - RECI Presentation - https://analytical-testing.ie/blog/electrical-safety-testing-standards/ )

I've had a read through your tests, and they are basically the same idea as what we have to do.
All I can say is that if it were a UK sheet, the sub main CU get's it's own sheet, and you would record the earth loop impedance at the incomer of the sub main DB at the top of the sheet.
Then for each circuit you would record either just the resistance of the circuit CPC (R2) on the circuit itself, or the combined resistance of the Live and CPC (R1+R2).
Then we also note the Zs which is the total, either measured like your test 8 "Line/Earth fault loop impedance" or calculated by adding the incomer impedance to the R1+R2.
I've never seen one of your test sheets though so hopefully someone local can comment!



If the CPC is not a wire, then the R2 can be measured with a long wander lead, or a temporary link made at the circuit end and R1+R2 measured at the consumer unit. Just the same as if it were a wire really.
Disconnecting bonding and incoming earth at the sub-main (obviously with it isolated) can remove the parallel paths from the measurements.

Makes sense giving each board its own sheet, that's the way the test sheets are done here

Incoming fault loop + final loop and you can record your protective conducter resistance or R1+R2

That probably answers my query about max protective conducter resistance reading

 

[timhoward]

I'm still not quite clear on the ring finals

If I want the max resistance of the CPC on a ring final cct.

What's the exact method/formula for that ?

Fig8 test will measure the exact answer, including any damaged sockets with poor contacts on the pins.

End-to-end tests measuring r1,rn and r2 (small letters) and calculating (r1+r2)/4 will tell you what the answer is assuming all sockets are in perfect condition.

 

[LastManOnline]

2) Can someone explain simply the L-E loop test for ring circuits

Now that your question has been expertly answered your next challenge will be to locate a ring circuit within a hundred mile radius of your home. You might just find a few in Dublin, but they are rare.
In case you are planning to install any be aware they are forbidden in kitchens (the very area they are most valued in the UK). I suspect (but Don, t support) that they are nearing the electrical exit. You may also find you will be the only spark(Irish based) in 2022 to do so.
To test they are a royal pain in connection with their simpler cousin the radial.

 

[timhoward]

To test they are a royal pain in connection with their simpler cousin the radial.

I'm glad you found this thread!
I did a board change recently that had no ring circuits as the owner simply disliked them. There were in fact far too many radial circuits, he had one just for the kettle socket, and I used 9 RCBOs for a simple 3 bed house.
But anyway, it was very nice (and odd) not having any RFCs to test and I couldn't quite believe how quickly I got it all tested.

 

[LastManOnline]

radial circuits...... , and I used 9 RCBOs

Radial circuits and rcbo, s (dual pole?) my dream CU

But anyway, it was very nice (and odd) not having any RFCs to test and I couldn't quite believe how quickly I got it all tested.

"Oi lad, s I believe we have a potential convert"

 

[nicebutdim]

To test they are a royal pain in connection with their simpler cousin the radial.

In general terms this is true, but I can't help wondering if Irish regulations stipulate how radial circuits must be installed or amended.

If it is mandated that such circuits follow a strictly linear form , then all is simple. If not; what's to stop future additions being taken from random points, with obvious testing issues arising as more than one end point can exist?

 

[timhoward]

Oi lad, s I believe we have a potential convert"

In many ways I already am.
We need to remember that the ring final circuit was designed in the 40's anticipating a shortage of copper when houses had far fewer sockets arranged generally in large squares. It was true then that you could serve a large area with a smaller gauge cable therefore using less total copper. I honestly don't think this logic stacks up today.

While I obviously maintain these circuits every day I don't often install new ones.

 

[SparkySy]

I quite like the ring final circuit myself.
During testing some from late 70s to around early 80s and untouched ones (no alterations or additions) around my area, generally they are in very good condition apart from the odd loose terminal or knackered outlet!
The main problem with them is people who don't quite have the skills to work on them but think they do (imho)
I think we should still try to reserve resources be that copper or the ever mounting pile of pvc that we keep adding to, none of these things are infinite!
Although I do like and use radial circuits as well, I think there is still a purpose for ring circuits and a time and place to use them.
Sy

 

[Mikegh]

Now that your question has been expertly answered your next challenge will be to locate a ring circuit within a hundred mile radius of your home. You might just find a few in Dublin, but they are rare.
In case you are planning to install any be aware they are forbidden in kitchens (the very area they are most valued in the UK). I suspect (but Don, t support) that they are nearing the electrical exit. You may also find you will be the only spark(Irish based) in 2022 to do so.
To test they are a royal pain in connection with their simpler cousin the radial.

Yes of course the ring circuit and ring final still have a place in industry /commercial and power distribution

Not so much in domestic imo although with the price of copper ?

As you say we're(ire) using multiple radials now in kitchens and utility, years ago it was a couple of rings

As you say the testing is a little complex for a basic circuit