IR Testing... Am I missing a trick here?

[uksparks]

Hi,

I know this may seem like a stupid question, but here goes.

Example...

You have an existing RFC and spur off to a SFCU to feed a flood light for example.

Connect it up, do R1+R2, Zs etc,

but IR, I disconnect N and then run 250v as a start between L-N, then L-E, then N-E, then if all clear (acceptable reading say >100M), I do it at 500v and take the risk.

But first I go round the entire flaming house unplugging everything as there's no telling whats on what circuit, if its SP or DP sockets and just switching off may not be safe, or have missed something.

I know I can do it LN-E @ 500v, but am I missing a trick here?

My issue is, I get a lot of customers wondering why I am essentially interfering with the the rest of the house (unplugging stuff) just because I have fitted an outside light... People don't want me traipsing round their house when all they want is a new light.

I explain it to them, but what do you do? I feel I am doing too much.

 

[telectrix]

IR test the wiring to the new light before you connect it to the existing wiring. then if you're fussy. test LN-E of the whole circuit with appluances left in.

 

[uksparks]

Am I not right though, in thinking you are supposed to test the entire circuit correctly?

 

[telectrix]

LN-E is a perfectly acceptable test for existing circuits. you only need a L-N teat for new installations.

 

[uksparks]

Well I guess at least doing what I am doing is better than doing it incorrectly so to speak.

 

[uksparks]

LN-E is a perfectly acceptable test for existing circuits. you only need a L-N teat for new installations.

Ill look tomorrow, but is that what it says in the regs?

 

[telectrix]

IMO, you need to fully test what you are installing new. then ensure that the installation ( inc. the circuit you are adding to) is safe to connect to and is safe for continued use. this includes, of course checking earthing and bonding. sometimes common sense overrules blind obedience to regs.

 

[uksparks]

Well quite, I think my problem is that I always go on the side of caution and do a full job on it.

yes any new work or cables etc get the full job without question.

i think I'll revise my testing procedures slightly.

thanks

 

[Deleted member 26818]

1. Before conducting an alteration or making an addition to an existing installation, you will have first determined that the existing installation is in a satisfactory condition for you to make the alteration or addition.
2. You are required to inspect and conduct appropriate tests on the work you have conducted, recording the results on the certification.
3. It is prohibited to use either an EIC or MWEIC for the inspection and testing of an existing installation.

 

[Leesparkykent]

1. Before conducting an alteration or making an addition to an existing installation, you will have first determined that the existing installation is in a satisfactory condition for you to make the alteration or addition.
2. You are required to inspect and conduct appropriate tests on the work you have conducted, recording the results on the certification.
3. It is prohibited to use either an EIC or MWEIC for the inspection and testing of an existing installation.

But not for an addition on or alteration of an existing circuit.

 

[Midwest]

What Lee said above? If I was doing Uksparks job, I would do what Tel said. If I was doing something more extensive, major alteration of ring final, then I would do L-L, L-E, N-E test. What you feel is appropriate before re -energising circuit.

 

[uksparks]

But not for an addition on or alteration of an existing circuit.

I was just going to say that, otherwise you would never be able to do any tests and fill in a cert for an existing installation.

 

[uksparks]

What Lee said above? If I was doing Uksparks job, I would do what Tel said. If I was doing something more extensive, major alteration of ring final, then I would do L-L, L-E, N-E test. What you feel is appropriate before re -energising circuit.

That's it, if I have extended a ring around another room or something like that, then it warrants a full set of tests.

 

[Midwest]

I was just going to say that, otherwise you would never be able to do any tests and fill in a cert for an existing installation.

Oohhh heaven!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

But not for an addition on or alteration of an existing circuit.

Nope applies in all cases.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Nope applies in all cases.

Care to explain in your usual obnoxious fashion?

 

[Hellmooth]

Looking forward to hearing this one.........what do you fill out if you're altering a circuit?

 

[Midwest]

Nope applies in all cases.

Okay, is this a play on words? Perhaps you can enlighten us all. Just reading page 418 BYB; MWC is intended to be used for additions & alterations to an installation, that do not extend to the provision of a new circuit. Examples include the addition of socket outlets or lighting points to an existing circuit'. Your just playing with us, aren't you.

 

[davesparks]

3. It is prohibited to use either an EIC or MWEIC for the inspection and testing of an existing installation.

Well you could have phrased that a bit better.
Of course an EIC or MWC can't be used for reporting on an existing install, in the same way an EICR cannot be used to certify new work.
But that is irrelevant to the thread, uksparks is asking about the testing of alterations to an existing circuit, not reporting on an installation.
The whole point of an MWC is to certify alterations to existing installations!

 

[Deleted member 9648]

He's posted this sort of tosh before....most noticeably on RCD protection in bathrooms....don't take it too seriously.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If it's tosh, then there's no need for further discussion, carry on as you will.

 

[Leesparkykent]

:iamwithstupid:.....:38:

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Strange how the people who disagree with me, are unable to offer an argument which shows I am wrong.
The one I like most, is 'It might say such and such in the Regs, but it doesn't actually mean that'.
I also find it odd, that I'm being accused of obnoxiousness, yet I have never been banned, unlike my accuser.

 

[Leesparkykent]

Strange how the people who disagree with me, are unable to offer an argument which shows I am wrong.
The one I like most, is 'It might say such and such in the Regs, but it doesn't actually mean that'.
I also find it odd, that I'm being accused of obnoxiousness, yet I have never been banned, unlike my accuser.

I think Davesparks put it pretty well in #19

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Again, the requirement is to inspect and test the new work, not the existing installation.

 

[Andy78]

Again, the requirement is to inspect and test the new work, not the existing installation.

Even though the regs require you to record any defects found in the existing installation, so far as is reasonably practicable, when carrying out alterations or additions ?

To me that requirement would include testing the entirety of any circuit that is being altered.

 

[Darkwood]

Come on guys lets keep things on track and constructive here as oppose to the way this thread could be heading reading some of the replies, if you disagree with a post any member has made and want to challenge it then bring something to the table to make your case rather than just making short smart comment... nothing wrong with a good debate but lets not send the thread downhill while having it... Thankyou.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I get it, we ignore the requirement to ensure the existing installation, supplier's equipment, earthing arrangements, etc. are adequate for the alteration or increase in load before making any alteration or addition.
We just test afterwards.
If someone believes the requirement to note defects (where reasonably practicable) in the existing installation, extends to inspecting and testing, why restrict it to the circuit being altered?
Conduct a full EICR, charge the client £250, then add the spur.

 

[andyb]

So what about a cu change?
I test every circuit that I connect to a new board and put the results on an eic.

 

[TJ Anderson]

So what about a cu change?
I test every circuit that I connect to a new board and put the results on an eic.

That's different as you are (most likely) changing circuit characteristics (e.g. going from 3036 to 60898 for OCPD).

 

[andyb]

That's different as you are changing circuit characteristics.

Then I'm not sure what's being debated here.

Can someone enlighten me please.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

So what about a cu change?
I test every circuit that I connect to a new board and put the results on an eic.

That's your choice, not a requirement of BS7671.
Just about any alteration or addition to a circuit, will alter the characteristics of that circuit.
All BS7671 requires, is that your work complies.

What's being discussed, as far as I'm aware, is whether an existing RFC is required to be tested after a spur has been added.

 

[andyb]

That's your choice, not a requirement of BS7671.
Just about any alteration or addition to a circuit, will alter the characteristics of that circuit.
All BS7671 requires, is that your work complies.

Do you test the installation Spin? (when changing a cu)
If not what paper work do you issue?

Interested, that's all.

 

[TJ Anderson]

Then I'm not sure what's being debated here.

Can someone enlighten me please.

Sorry Andy, went a bit off track there. The actual question was, as I read it, should we be carrying out L-N IR to the whole circuit when installing a spur to a RFC.

 

[TJ Anderson]

Do you test the installation Spin? (when changing a cu)
If not what paper work do you issue?

Interested, that's all.

You would have to, how else could you show the circuits were satisfactory (with BS7671) with your new OCPD's and RCD's if you did not issue an EIC. Although this is generally expected and is a practical way of showing compliance (it is what I do), I don't think it is a specific requirement of BS7671.

 

[andyb]

Sorry Andy, went a bit off track there. The actual question was, as I read it, should we be carrying out L-N IR to the whole circuit when installing a spur to a RFC.

That's fine TJ,

It seemed a straight forward thread about the scope of testing after extending a circuit.
The arguments started after Spin posted that It is prohibited to use either an EIC or MWEIC for the inspection and testing of an existing installation.

It got a bit silly after that and I'm still not sure exactly what was meant.

 

[andyb]

You would have to, how else could you show the circuits were satisfactory (with BS7671) with your new OCPD's and RCD's if you did not issue an EIC. Although this is generally expected and is a practical way of showing compliance, I don't think it is a specific requirement of BS7671.

Totally agree, always do.

I was just responding to post 32.

 

[Darkwood]

That's your choice, not a requirement of BS7671.
Just about any alteration or addition to a circuit, will alter the characteristics of that circuit.
All BS7671 requires, is that your work complies.

What's being discussed, as far as I'm aware, is whether an existing RFC is required to be tested after a spur has been added.

I would say that you need to ensure any work you do is safe and if this is an addition or extension of an existing circuit then you must confirm the safety and integrity of the circuit you have added to or altered and this can only be done by testing, digressing to the board change comment, if you change a board you are effectively modifying, altering the nature of all the circuits and you need to verify that any circuits you re-establish in your new CU are not unsafe, again to ensure your butt is covered this is done by testing and documenting with a Cert'.

Although I don't do domestic if I ever went to quote a job I would check the earthing, bonding and a quick test at the quotation stage of the circuit the spur was to be added to with no need to write it up at this stage to ensure your price covered all the work required to ensure your work would be connected to a safe ring main in the case of this discussion. There may not be any specific regulation but you are required to ensure any work you do is to regulation and is safe and where this means you have connected to existing then you also should make sure of the safety and integrity of the circuit you are adding/altering.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

To be honest the problem reported by the OP is not one I have ever experienced.
If I need to disconnect appliances from a circuit so I can test it, they get disconnected.
Never had anyone complain about me having to do so.
BS7671 requires us before undertaking an alteration or addition to first determine that the existing equipment (including the supplier's) and earthing arrangements are adequate for the proposed new work.
There is no requirement to issue any certification or a report when doing so.
Once new work is completed, appropriate certification along with the results of any relevant tests is required to be issued.

How people determine that the existing installation is adequate is up to them.
Some will want to test the complete installation, others just the circuit being altered.
With an RFC, I would suggest it's a good idea to first check that it is in fact an RFC, that there are no breaks in the ring, and depending upon the alteration, whether RCD protection will be required. if yes, then an IR test would be to my mind a good idea.
In the OP's case, there is no requirement for RCD protection.
As such all that will be required, is an MWEIC recording the IR of the new conductors, the Zs and that polarity is correct.
The Zs test will prove continuity of the CPC.

 

[uksparks]

So spinlondon, if you clearly don't issue an EIC or MEWC for any work, what do you issue?