Discuss How to test a circuits in steel conduit as the cpc in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Problem here, is that we work to BS7671, not to the NICEIC regulations.
There are no tables of maximum R1+R2 in BS7671, there are only tables for maximum Zs.
So it’s all very well measuring R1+R2 and adding it to Ze, but what do you do if that value is above the maximum permissible?
What you do is rewire the circuit or design it better. Or use a B type MCB but only if the circuit is adequate for a B type MCB. If it’s a Condition report surely it’s a C2 if a circuit fails max Permissible Zs. I fail to see your point anyway because a circuit can still fail doing a Zs test. We shouldn’t be relying on parallel paths to get circuits to pass. Even thow it is done, doesn’t make it right.
 
How can say the circuit has failed max Permissible Zs if you’ve only calculated the Zs?
You’ve just admitted that Zs can be affected by parallel paths, so unless you measure the Zs, you cannot say whether the circuit fails or not.
There’s no prohibition in BS7671 against using parallel paths.
 
How can say the circuit has failed max Permissible Zs if you’ve only calculated the Zs?
You’ve just admitted that Zs can be affected by parallel paths, so unless you measure the Zs, you cannot say whether the circuit fails or not.
There’s no prohibition in BS7671 against using parallel paths.
You do the R1 +R2 + Ze and if it fails that then you measure Zs to see if that passes. I didn’t say never do a Zs, my point was to reduce the amount of live testing and also more importantly never calculate your R1+R2. If you calculate your R1 +R2 your calculating it from a measured Zs that could be affected by parallel paths. So it’s not a true R1+R2 reading. Only a measured R1 +R2 is a true reading.
 
Hi,and don't forget to do the inspection part,as,if containment is effectively,a CPC, with possibly dozens of "connections",it may pass the testing,but could give a visible indication,of not being capable of sustaining a higher,fault current.
A ductor tester should be used to check the condition of the conduit joints. Test current of 100A should be fine.
 
With a wandering earth lead. If I explain any further I feel that I am teaching you to suck eggs.
I’ve had that feeling every time I’ve replied to a comment lol. On a serious note I feel that some people who are doing EICRs are not clued up enough to be doing them. But I’m happy to help anyone out. We all have to learn and help each other out. Two heads are better than one.
 
Problem here, is that we work to BS7671, not to the NICEIC regulations.
There are no tables of maximum R1+R2 in BS7671, there are only tables for maximum Zs.
So it’s all very well measuring R1+R2 and adding it to Ze, but what do you do if that value is above the maximum permissible?
Then either the design is wrong or it has not been constructed to the design. A parallel path can be out of the control of the designer and in practice, this could disappear by a plumber inserting a plastic Tee in a copper pipe.
 
It was perfectly acceptable in the 16th Ed to deliberately put in place parallel paths through supplementary bonding to reduce fault path impedance so it is not impossible to discover this doing an EICR.
 
In the 17th GN8 amd3 (which is the last GN series I currently have) it gives reg 411.3.2.6 and states "Supplementary bonding is required by BS7671 to be provided in the following circumstances: where, in the event of an Earth fault, the conditions for automatic disconnection cannot be fulfilled in the time required by reg 411.3.2.2, 411.3.2.3 or 411.3.2.4, as appropriate"

The other circumstances listed are in special locations such as bathrooms etc,,, etc.

This sure looks like reducing the Zs to me :)
 
I’ve had that feeling every time I’ve replied to a comment lol. On a serious note I feel that some people who are doing EICRs are not clued up enough to be doing them.
When you've had that feeling as often as I have, over the years, I might take you seriously.;)

As regards your serious note....I totally agree.
 
Just out of (genuine) interest Westy can you give me the reg number for the 16th where SB was not allowed to reduce a Zs ?, I still have regs books and some OSGs going back to the 15th ed and I will look it up.

The special locations bit in my previous post, which I never bothered writing out is more to do with reducing Ut (touch voltages) which is a different kettle of fish entirely.
 
Although 413-02-15 was deleted in 16th edition Amd. 2,
413-02-04 (i) still allowed it to be used with similar wording to that of 17th edition 411.3.2.6.
 
Cheers, Spin, I have the earlier 16th ed regs books and the last brown book (2004) of that edition and I will if I can be bothered look that up.
 

Reply to How to test a circuits in steel conduit as the cpc in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
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

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock