eicr

[1983]

Hi guys R1+R2 on a eicr mates tutor on the 2395 course said no need to carry out just zs is enough and on ring just end to end readings what's everyone's thoughts on this

 

[Pete999]

Hi guys R1+R2 on a eicr mates tutor on the 2395 course said no need to carry out just zs is enough and on ring just end to end readings what's everyone's thoughts on this

Well he ain't doing it proper like is he?

 

[1983]

What you mean proper this is coming from teacher teaching the 2395 said it's a good thing but unnecessary just zs is enough

 

[Pete999]

What you mean proper this is coming from teacher teaching the 2395 said it's a good thing but unnecessary just zs is enough

You asked for opinions or thoughts file:///C:/Users/Pete/Downloads/Best-Practice-Guide-4-Issue-4-.pdf
ps my post was in jest

 

[westward10]

What does he mean just Zs, no other tests on the ring final, not even an end to end check.

 

[Pete999]

What does he mean just Zs, no other tests on the ring final, not even an end to end check.

The Tutor said Zs and end to end tests NO R1+R2 required, or at least that's what I think the OP means. You have to ask yourself, why does the EICR form have slots for R1+R2 if it's not required, odd that Westy.

 

[SJD]

Hi guys R1+R2 on a eicr mates tutor on the 2395 course said no need to carry out just zs is enough and on ring just end to end readings what's everyone's thoughts on this

On a ring final circuit, does this mean just measuring r1, rN, r2 - and nothing else? Or does he mean Zs (at every outlet) plus r1, rN, r2?

If you measure Zs rather than (R1+R2), then you are not going to know for sure (R1+R2), you can't just subtract Ze (at least if you want to do it properly, and be sure you aren't including any parallel paths due to bonding etc.).

 

[1983]

That's my point ive always done R1+R2 but from my understanding it's mainly to prove that the earth exists and is sound which zs proves as well an obviously it trips In the required time. My mate even showed me his tutors eicr which shows he doesn't carry it out saying only needed on new installs only not on eicr as its already energised

 

[1983]

On a ring final circuit, does this mean just measuring r1, rN, r2 - and nothing else? Or does he mean Zs (at every outlet) plus r1, rN, r2?

If you measure Zs rather than (R1+R2), then you are not going to know for sure (R1+R2), you can't just subtract Ze (at least if you want to do it properly, and be sure you aren't including any parallel paths due to bonding etc.).

But in real life in the event of a fault parallel paths would be included no?

 

[1983]

On a ring final circuit, does this mean just measuring r1, rN, r2 - and nothing else? Or does he mean Zs (at every outlet) plus r1, rN, r2?

If you measure Zs rather than (R1+R2), then you are not going to know for sure (R1+R2), you can't just subtract Ze (at least if you want to do it properly, and be sure you aren't including any parallel paths due to bonding etc.).

r1 r2 rn and zs at every accessible point

 

[SJD]

Well I'm not sure the tutor would pass his 2395 doing it his way!

Just because an installation is energised doesn't mean it is installed to regulations.

 

[1983]

The Tutor said Zs and end to end tests NO R1+R2 required, or at least that's what I think the OP means. You have to ask yourself, why does the EICR form have slots for R1+R2 if it's not required, odd that Westy.

Then again they should have didn't types for d

Well I'm not sure the tutor would pass his 2395 doing it his way!

Just because an installation is energised doesn't mean it is installed to regulations.

can you please clarify the reason of R1+R2? Think I'll give nic ring see what they have to say

 

[Pete999]

Well I'm not sure the tutor would pass his 2395 doing it his way!

Just because an installation is energised doesn't mean it is installed to regulations.

I totaly agree

 

[1983]

Another thing I can't get my head around is if you give a satisfactory report at the time of testing and inspection say for 5years on a domestic how can we be hold accountable when you don't no who's been in after u and done God knows what especially in council property's I've seen so many different contractors doing bits and bobs no certifying at all leaving the installation worst off

 

[Pete999]

Then again they should have didn't types for d

can you please clarify the reason of R1+R2? Think I'll give nic ring see what they have to say

I think Chris's Vid will answer your question
1983 may be a good idea to ask your mate to ask his Tutor what he thinks of the video.

 

[Andy78]

This is all from the regs which states the main purpose of periodic testing is to verify that disconnection times are met and that minimal dismantling shall be done. However, a broken RFC can still return a compliant Zs.
I always carry out a full range of tests on all circuits that are contained within the scope of the report.

 

[1983]

Thank you everyone for the feed back I've always done the full test but after hearing this from my mates tutor who's teaching the 2395 and also showed me the tutors old eicr papers where all I see is n/a in the R1+R2 column got me thinking have I been wasiting time

 

[Andy78]

Thank you everyone for the feed back I've always done the full test but after hearing this from my mates tutor who's teaching the 2395 and also showed me the tutors old eicr papers where all I see is n/a in the R1+R2 column got me thinking have I been wasiting time

I can understand the thinking on a radial circuit. The purpose of an earth continuity test is to prove there is a valid fault path before energising. As the circuit is already energised then this is not a required test. As the EICR is to prove safety and that disconnection times are met then a Zs result should suffice.

BUT... The problem exists with ring final circuits that can have a valid earth path but still not have ring continuity.
Also, verification of R1+R2 lets you calculate your Zs to check against your live loop reading.

Get your mate to ask the tutor about RFC testing on a periodic inspection.

 

[HandySparks]

Ring continuity, plus a Zs at each socket for me. This complies with IET Guidance Note 3, whis says that a Zs may be used to verify the cpc.

 

[1983]

I can understand the thinking on a radial circuit. The purpose of an earth continuity test is to prove there is a valid fault path before energising. As the circuit is already energised then this is not a required test. As the EICR is to prove safety and that disconnection times are met then a Zs result should suffice.

BUT... The problem exists with ring final circuits that can have a valid earth path but still not have ring continuity.
Also, verification of R1+R2 lets you calculate your Zs to check against your live loop reading.

Get your mate to ask the tutor about RFC testing on a periodic inspection.

End to end zs rcd ir what he says Is necessary

 

[westward10]

The R1+R2 and R2 column are all blank although it states one should be entered. No end to ends of ring final conductors, I would say that schedule is incomplete.

 

[Risteard]

As stated, given that the installation is already energised there is nothing inherently wrong with proving cpc continuity with a live (Zs) test. This is also stated explicitly in Guidance Note 3. Just because there are boxes doesn't mean they all need to be filled in. (For instance there are boxes for phase-phase and phase-neutral insulation resistance - but I would suggest these tests are generally never done during periodic inspection and testing.)

Guidance Note 3 also suggests that where records exist for a ring final circuit, and there is no evidence of alterations or additions to that circuit, then carrying out the complete series of tests for continuity of ring final circuit conductors may be unnecessary. In this instance the end-to-end tests in isolation would seem reasonable.

 

[Risteard]

The R1+R2 and R2 column are all blank although it states one should be entered. No end to ends of ring final conductors, I would say that schedule is incomplete.

That's for new installations. I'll bet during an EICR that the insulation resistance readings between live conductors won't be filled out. There is nothing wrong with "LIM" being inserted in any of those boxes - just agree it with the client beforehand.

 

[Wilko]

... My mate even showed me his tutors eicr which shows he doesn't carry it out saying only needed on new installs only not on eicr as its already energised

I'm a simple fellow and for a condition report I read 621.2(iv) saying in part "identification of installation defects and departures ... that may give rise to danger". So if I can confirm rfc continuity then I can confirm the 32A mcb is appropriate for the 2.5mm (with other tests).

Maybe I have misunderstood?

 

[1983]

Most clients haven't got clue whats going on dont even go thru the certs just look for the satisfactory result. Which once issued to say it's safe for x amount of time how do we know what takes place after we leave and we can be hold accountable till the duration of the cert

 

[westward10]

That's for new installations. I'll bet during an EICR that the insulation resistance readings between live conductors won't be filled out. There is nothing wrong with "LIM" being inserted in any of those boxes - just agree it with the client beforehand.

The top of the column clearly states one should be listed, not put NA in each box.

 

[bigspark17]

I think Chris's Vid will answer your question
1983 may be a good idea to ask your mate to ask his Tutor what he thinks of the video.

That is for testing a new install covered under 2394 not 2395 which is periodic there are diferent requierments, it is down to the tester what test needs to be carried out and agreed with the customer and clearly stated on the cert

 

[bigspark17]

Thank you everyone for the feed back I've always done the full test but after hearing this from my mates tutor who's teaching the 2395 and also showed me the tutors old eicr papers where all I see is n/a in the R1+R2 column got me thinking have I been wasiting time

Welcome to the real world of testing

 

[Octopus]

Replies to date just go to show how this is interpreted. GN3 guide for me.

But I suspect that a considerable amount of testers don't do full dead tests as part of the eicr. Especially those done for estate agents

 

[Andy78]

The top of the column clearly states one should be listed, not put NA in each box.

The schedule of test results example in the regs is generic and common to both EIC and EICR though.

 

[Toneyz]

It is as the name surgests a report on the condition fully or in part of the electrical installation at that time and can be used to see if the installation has deteriated since the last .

 

[HandySparks]

Replies to date just go to show how this is interpreted. GN3 guide for me.

But I suspect that a considerable amount of testers don't do full dead tests as part of the eicr.

GN3 specifically states that, on an EICR, a Zs test can be used instead of R1+R2 to prove that the earth fault path is OK.

 

[Pete999]

That is for testing a new install covered under 2394 not 2395 which is periodic there are diferent requierments, it is down to the tester what test needs to be carried out and agreed with the customer and clearly stated on the cert

Just trying to show the OP the correct procedure for testing RFC

 

[hightower]

For all those saying a Zs can be used to prove an earth fault path exists, fair enough. However, there's more issues at play with a RFC as I've been taught. The three I can think of are:

• Must be a complete ring
• Must have no interconnections (so no rings within rings)
• Must have no daisy chains of spurs without additional protection

So, Zs proves earth continuity. However, it doesn't prove any of the above. Only the 3-stage RFC testing procedure can, hence why we do it in the first place. An EICR is carried out to prove how safe the installation is, but what would you code each of the three items above if there were issues - I'd reckon a C2 in each case? So there exists some unique situations for RFCs that can be dangerous, and we're not going to test for them at an EICR? If that's the case, why bother testing for them at installation either?

Anyway, to answer the OP - full RFC testing procedure for me every time. Okay, that means disconnecting a few cables at the board (minimal dismantling, I get that) but the pros of a full test far outweigh the cons of disconnecting a few cables momentarily.

You'll commonly hear it said, the less writing an EICR has on it (as in test results, limitations etc), the less that bit of paperwork is worth.

 

[westward10]

You should at least do an end to end test and a figure of eight, this should give a rough indication of the Zs.

 

[hightower]

You should at least do an end to end test and a figure of eight, this should give a rough indication of the Zs.

If you do the figure of 8, you have your R1+R2 value....

 

[1983]

Spoke to the nic he said no two places are the same it's about your feel on the installation if you find there as been alteration then do it if you feel it looks good readings good end to end then it's ok all bout your professional judgement I think I'll carry on doing it the way I have been all test that's involved just bit shocked what some colleges are teaching

 

[westward10]

Spoke to the nic he said no two places are the same it's about your feel on the installation if you find there as been alteration then do it if you feel it looks good readings good end to end then it's ok all bout your professional judgement I think I'll carry on doing it the way I have been all test that's involved just bit shocked what some colleges are teaching

That fence they sit on must be well worn.

 

[Risteard]

However, it doesn't prove any of the above. Only the 3-stage RFC testing procedure can, hence why we do it in the first place.

Again I would point you to the guidance in Guidance Note 3 which suggests that a full continuity of ring final circuit conductors test may not be warranted or necessary where records exist for existing ring final circuits and where no alterations to that circuit have been made. Again, like I said, end-to-end tests on the circuit conductors would seem to be reasonable in these circumstances. Obviously the Zs of all socket outlets should also be verified.

 

[1983]

Thank you guys for all the feed back

 

[Des 56]

It seems to boil down to what tickles your fancy
Are you person 1 or person 2 ?

Person 1
Carry out an eicr to get numbers to fill up the many optional little boxes on a multi purpose test sheet
(You'll commonly hear it said, the less writing an EICR has on it (as in test results), the less that bit of paperwork is worth.)

Person 2
Carry out an eicr with minimal disruption and dismantling whilst verifying the safety of the installation
( Guidance Note 3 which suggests that a full continuity of ring final circuit conductors test may not be warranted or necessary where records exist for existing ring final circuits and where no alterations to that circuit have been made)


I personally find tiresome ticks leads one to tend to lose the plot

(The altered quotes used above have served the purpose of my post only,they are not a reflection on the content agreed or otherwise of the posts they originated from)

 

[hightower]

Carry out an eicr with minimal disruption and dismantling whilst verifying the safety of the installation
( Guidance Note 3 which suggests that a full continuity of ring final circuit conductors test may not be warranted or necessary where records exist for existing ring final circuits and where no alterations to that circuit have been made)

How many domestic eicrs have you done where this paperwork was available AND no alterations were made. Fair enough, I'm new to the game, but I reckon it's not all that often anyway

 

[Des 56]

How many domestic eicrs have you done where this paperwork was available AND no alterations were made. Fair enough, I'm new to the game, but I reckon it's not all that often anyway

Just trying to see if there are enough fingers on my one hand to give an accurate figure
Ok finished counting and Yes there were ample fingers to answer truthfully
You have a very valid point,I have tested for councils/housing associations and never been given previous results to compare,however,If they are available and depending on your assessment of any alteration or potching etc,the point stands

 

[westward10]

Just because something on the surface appears not to been have altered, never assume it has not.

 

[Robert Turnbull]

An EICR is a "snap shot" of a installation this is NICEIC's view, i spend about 5 full working days a year on site with them and constant review of jobs and certificates.

The less you take apart the better, you more likely to cause a fault. A good tester should be able to use there skill and judgment on just how much needs opening up. The numbers and readings are just a small part of a EICR.

 

[bigspark17]

I agree the less dismantling the better during an eicr but ring final conductors end to end is a must for me, i do not however do the full 3 step ring final tests but do zs at every socket outlet. Who does do the 3 step test on an eicr?

 

[hightower]

I agree the less dismantling the better during an eicr but ring final conductors end to end is a must for me, i do not however do the full 3 step ring final tests but do zs at every socket outlet. Who does do the 3 step test on an eicr?

I do the three step. If you're dismantling for end to end then there's no extra skin off your back to do the other two steps

 

[Risteard]

An EICR is a "snap shot" of a installation this is NICEIC's view, i spend about 5 full working days a year on site with them and constant review of jobs and certificates.

The less you take apart the better, you more likely to cause a fault. A good tester should be able to use there skill and judgment on just how much needs opening up. The numbers and readings are just a small part of a EICR.

Completely agree.