UK Niceic Assesment

[banny07]

does the RCBO have a functional earth wire that remained connected?

These RCBO don't have functional earth. Thanks

 

[banny07]

On the report (that isn't back up yet) I think it was 5 Mohms for one circuit and 7 Mohms for other.
I know they both pass.

Here is updated installation certificate guys! Please have a look and point out any area I need to improve.Thanks again.

 

[timhoward]

I see I completely mis-remembered and the IR was 18Mohms. Unless you have time on your hands I'd leave that.
The main thing with this (and other comments) was you having a comment ready for an assessor picking it up. I've known assessors not give an IEC a 2nd glance, and a different one spent 30 minutes talking about it! Luck of the draw really....

 

[banny07]

I see I completely mis-remembered and the IR was 18Mohms. Unless you have time on your hands I'd leave that.
The main thing with this (and other comments) was you having a comment ready for an assessor picking it up. I've known assessors not give an IEC a 2nd glance, and a different one spent 30 minutes talking about it! Luck of the draw really....

I had an email from assessor to email him IEC. Please advise if it is good enough to emailed to him. Could you please information why insulation reader is lesser when testing between Live-Earth than live- live?Thanks

 

[catdog1121]

I had an email from assessor to email him IEC. Please advise if it is good enough to emailed to him. Could you please information why insulation reader is lesser when testing between Live-Earth than live- live?Thanks

Looks ok.. My only comments and they are very minor.

1. Under main switch, put N/A in all empty boxes so it cannot be modified..
2. In your insulation resistance tests you have a variety of greater than values, generally you put greater than when you reach the limit of your tester, think some older MFT were 299, hence you will often see >299, if its a modern one that goes upto 999 then put the reading you have not >200 as its a record that will help future electricians so being more accurate is better.
3. Under test instruments details, I would put the make and model of the MFT not just "MFT"
4. This is an EIC not EICR so you should not have general limitations, but if there are circuits where you cannot do testing say Live to neutral insulation resistance, then these circuits and reasons should be stated in details of circuits vulnerable to damage when testing. You should really be doing L-N on an EIC unless it is not feasible, and if it is not feasible then write why. The only circuit you identified is smokes although thats the only circuit you have actually fully tested so why is it identified as a circuit that could be damaged by testing? Sockets you should unplug everything and isolate any FCU's, if they have multiple usb sockets or there are sockets with things plugged in that you cannot reach without moving heavy furniture risking damage then thats fair enough but put that. Again with lighting you should remove all lamps and do L-N testing, if they have a load of downlights with integrated LED's then again fair enough its not feasible to disconnect them but put that.

Not doing L-N insulation resistance testing he might pick you up on it as it stands out that you have not put reasons for not doing it and looks like you have just avoided it which is fine if its a limitation on an EICR but not for an EIC.

 

[westward10]

The test instrument/s are identified by serial number. For an existing installation and consumer unit replacement there is no way an assessor would question omitting line to neutral insulation resistance testing, they are existing circuits so the test is irrelevant. Writing twaddle like sensitive equipment etc.... is too much information it is not important.

 

[catdog1121]

The test instrument/s are identified by serial number. For an existing installation and consumer unit replacement there is no way an assessor would question omitting line to neutral insulation resistance testing, they are existing circuits so the test is irrelevant. Writing twaddle like sensitive equipment etc.... is too much information it is not important.

Well that is what I got taught by multiple instructors and tutors. an EICR you can put whatever limitations you want as long as you list them, you can omit entire circuits if you want, say you were doing an EICR for a flooded house, presuming the cu was well above the flood level, there is no point needing to test the upstairs sockets or lighting...

An EIC I was always taught should not have any limitations, although in the real world I agree its not always practicable, my point was putting LIM on all L-N makes it look like he just cant be bothered to do it or is testing like an EICR, where do you stop, LIM on L-CPC just incase. Cant be bothered to do R1+R2, might as well LIM that, and Zs cause you LIM R1+R2 would have to be done live, so might as well LIM that as well..

Different electricians fill out the forms differently and different electricians believe what they do is correct but think about it, in EICR's there is a part for limitations, this is not in an EIC. If limitations were allowed why would you not have the same part that is in an EICR to write limitations in an EIC?

Different assessors focus on different things. Mine last picked me up on not having fire rated clips on my conduit... In a plastic shed... When I pointed this out he was like "Oh um yeah well obviously here its ok but I meant just in general dont forget them."

 

[timhoward]

I'd agree, it now looks fine. I'd missed the variety of > IR readings first time.
I think it's fair enough that you didn't to L->N tests on the existing circuits for a CU change, it's fair enough to note smoke alarms as sensitive (i.e. heads need removing before L-N IR tests in future) and it's good you fully tested the new circuit.
(I would generally agree that avoiding LIM's on an EIC is a good principle to aim for)
But yes, that is a good certificate and could be sent.

Could you please information why insulation reader is lesser when testing between Live-Earth than live- live?

Sorry, I don't have an answer for that. I'd be content the readings exceed GN3 pass values if I were you.
All the best for your assessment.

 

[westward10]

Well that is what I got taught by multiple instructors and tutors. an EICR you can put whatever limitations you want as long as you list them, you can omit entire circuits if you want, say you were doing an EICR for a flooded house, presuming the cu was well above the flood level, there is no point needing to test the upstairs sockets or lighting...

An EIC I was always taught should not have any limitations, although in the real world I agree its not always practicable, my point was putting LIM on all L-N makes it look like he just cant be bothered to do it or is testing like an EICR, where do you stop, LIM on L-CPC just incase. Cant be bothered to do R1+R2, might as well LIM that, and Zs cause you LIM R1+R2 would have to be done live, so might as well LIM that as well..

Different electricians fill out the forms differently and different electricians believe what they do is correct but think about it, in EICR's there is a part for limitations, this is not in an EIC. If limitations were allowed why would you not have the same part that is in an EICR to write limitations in an EIC?

Different assessors focus on different things. Mine last picked me up on not having fire rated clips on my conduit... In a plastic shed... When I pointed this out he was like "Oh um yeah well obviously here its ok but I meant just in general dont forget them."

Yes I agree the EIC should not show Limitations I did not really view it. I just leave them blank no assessor is going to care for an existing installation.

 

[banny07]

Well that is what I got taught by multiple instructors and tutors. an EICR you can put whatever limitations you want as long as you list them, you can omit entire circuits if you want, say you were doing an EICR for a flooded house, presuming the cu was well above the flood level, there is no point needing to test the upstairs sockets or lighting...

An EIC I was always taught should not have any limitations, although in the real world I agree its not always practicable, my point was putting LIM on all L-N makes it look like he just cant be bothered to do it or is testing like an EICR, where do you stop, LIM on L-CPC just incase. Cant be bothered to do R1+R2, might as well LIM that, and Zs cause you LIM R1+R2 would have to be done live, so might as well LIM that as well..

Different electricians fill out the forms differently and different electricians believe what they do is correct but think about it, in EICR's there is a part for limitations, this is not in an EIC. If limitations were allowed why would you not have the same part that is in an EICR to write limitations in an EIC?

Different assessors focus on different things. Mine last picked me up on not having fire rated clips on my conduit... In a plastic shed... When I pointed this out he was like "Oh um yeah well obviously here its ok but I meant just in general dont forget them."

Thanks for your valueable comments. In my humble opinion this is not new installation.I changed the consumer unit and installed a new circuit for smoke alarm .I mentioned this under
"Extent of the installation covered by this Certificate". Please correct me if I am wrong here.Thanks again.

 

[westward10]

Remove all LIMs from your schedule.

 

[banny07]

Remove all LIMs from your schedule.

There are some ceiling fans(with light combined) in the circuits.It will be difficult to disconnect them. Is it okay to swich them off when doing IR? or just leave LIM blank as previously suggested? Thanks

 

[westward10]

There are some ceiling fans(with light combined) in the circuits.It will be difficult to disconnect them. Is it okay to swich them off when doing IR? or just leave LIM blank as previously suggested? Thanks

Just IR test to earth leave the rest blank. Don't faff about disconnecting anything it is pointless just show your tests to earth.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

Here is updated installation certificate guys! Please have a look and point out any area I need to improve.Thanks again.

@banny07 , mind if I ask where you got the EIC form from? I use electraform, which gives a professional looking cert, but is tediously slow to use, has a lot of unnecessary extra bits in it, and has glitches. What you have used looks nice and simple

 

[timhoward]

@banny07 , mind if I ask where you got the EIC form from? I use electraform, which gives a professional looking cert, but is tediously slow to use, has a lot of unnecessary extra bits in it, and has glitches. What you have used looks nice and simple

I think he got it from ebay.
I believe the original source is here:

Electrical Installation Certificate

In order to support the electrical community we are providing FREE blank Electrical Installation Certificate forms that can be filled on your PC or can be printed and filled in by hand. PDF version also available for free.

www.electricaltestcertificates.co.uk

You need openoffice for those ones (also free).
I think they have PDF versions too.

 

[banny07]

@banny07 , mind if I ask where you got the EIC form from? I use electraform, which gives a professional looking cert, but is tediously slow to use, has a lot of unnecessary extra bits in it, and has glitches. What you have used looks nice and simple

I bought it off e*bay for about £15, comes with 4 diferent colours of certs.reports,reg books etc.on usb stick.

 

[banny07]

Electraform is worth using if you aren't doing many certs (and even if you are as well). Worth noting all costs are now +VAT though, hardly a deal breaker for its 5 credits for £5+VAT (£6)

There is a "measured kA" coloum in test result section on electaform. Could you please information on that. Thanks in advance.

 

[timhoward]

There is a "measured kA" coloum in test result section on electaform. Could you please information on that. Thanks in advance.

I think it's next to the measured Zs, and it's simply a space to optionally record the prospective fault current that the Zs would allow. So if you had a Zs of 0.80 ohms the tester would probably also tell you a PFC of 300 Amps (based on a measured voltage of 240, so ohms law, 240 / 0.80 = 300 ). So if you wanted to in this example you could write 0.3 KA in there.
I leave it blank most of the time.

 

[banny07]

I think it's next to the measured Zs, and it's simply a space to optionally record the prospective fault current that the Zs would allow. So if you had a Zs of 0.80 ohms the tester would probably also tell you a PFC of 300 Amps (based on a measured voltage of 240, so ohms law, 240 / 0.80 = 300 ). So if you wanted to in this example you could write 0.3 KA in there.
I leave it blank most of the time.

Thanks a lot! My mft did show this value but I did not note it so I will leave it blank at the moment but will note it next time. I am also struggling upload my tester detail, It shows in admin section but not in "circuits and test result" page. Thanks

 

[timhoward]

Thanks a lot! My mft did show this value but I did not note it so I will leave it blank at the moment but will note it next time. I am also struggling upload my tester detail, It shows in admin section but not in "circuits and test result" page. Thanks

I remember that problem Go to Admin > Engineers, add yourself, and specify which tester you are using in the Test Equipment section. I think you might also have to assign the job to yourself, then it all behaves as expected.