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