eicr

[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