Discuss Commercial EIRC testing tips advice in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification 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

you are just quoting a price .............. Have you done a site visit?

Anyone who can quote for an EICR and any remedial work my have a better crystal ball than me!

I haven’t quoted yet. I had a phone call and they asked for a price. I have gone back saying that lots need to be agreed ie limitations and such. Have said needs a site visit only then can a quote be provided.

They just wanted a price so we will wait and see
 
So you don’t take the lamps out of pendants? Fluros out of circuit And still manage to get acceptable readings? Maybe I need to change my MFT??? The other thing to be aware of is most of the old thorn fittings say disconnect before insulation testing In my apprentice days I blew up a few 1970s era chokes testing an old school more modern kit doesn’t mind so much but still skews the readings quite a bit
If you are connecting L-N together and testing to earth for IR testing,then it’s pointless to remove lamps.
 
The emergency lighting may be tested incidentally as sometimes it is on the same circuit as the lighting. I suppose you must agree with the client regards that. And it would of course be noted who agreed such a lim. But with loads of lims and IR testing between LN and PE the value of an EICR is less than it could be.
 
Watch out for chokes and digital ballasts on fluros and possibly led drivers as most of them don’t like 500v and will have to be disconnected or tested L&N together to earth but if it’s only a small shop disconnection would be the best method
Only if it’s a small shop like I said when your doing a hospital a school or similar disconnection just isn’t going to happen unless your apprentice annoys you one too many times;)
 
The emergency lighting may be tested incidentally as sometimes it is on the same circuit as the lighting. I suppose you must agree with the client regards that. And it would of course be noted who agreed such a lim. But with loads of lims and IR testing between LN and PE the value of an EICR is less than it could be.
IR tests on a Periodic between line/neutral are generally pointless and do not devalue an EICR. Test results make up a small part of any noted Codes.
 
IR tests on a Periodic between line/neutral are generally pointless and do not devalue an EICR. Test results make up a small part of any noted Codes.
I’m with @Vortigern on this if your doing an EICR you should really try to do it to the absolute best of your ability the regs ask for L-N tests so you should do them i am aware that they permit exceptions in some circumstances and allow you to test L&N to E but it’s always preferable to do the full test, otherwise what’s the point in ever doing the full test? I don’t think he means that it devalues it as in discredits it but when you carry out the EICR and test L&N to E then you can miss faults which are starting to develop deterioration etc etc so IMO the full test should be carried out where ever possible especially in situations where loads can readily be taken out of circuit.
 
I’d love some opinions on a vaguely related subject so we are carrying out in depth EICRs for a customer who has around 16 buildings on their site and many many DBs of course the usual -things added taken away no real meaningful legend to work from varying ages of equipment and varying quality of installs. Last Records were 1985 - I believe when most of the buildings were upgraded refurbed etc
Anyway we have come across thousands of circuits thousands of conduits and thousands of BS88-6 Fuses so far so good except when we attempt R1+R2 at the some of the multiple ring circuits after spending quite a while belling out and tracing we have discovered that many of the rings use conduits as CPCs-nothing wrong with that- but on some other parts of the ring there are CPCs and on some other parts (same ring)there are not so I’m thinking concealed JBs somewhere Zs readings are all spectacular so the conduits/CPCs/Parralell paths are providing good earths but and here’s the big but because of the situation with the CPCs and in most cases there are no CPCs at the DB for the rings so R1+R2 isn’t a viable option and because of the layout of the buildings and their use long wander R2 leads aren’t really a viable option either would it be acceptable for the circuits affected to be tested using the live test R1+R2 setting of the megger MFT 1720 and left at that ? We would of course note on the certificate that this was the method we used to conduct the tests on these particular circuits it just feels a little wrong if you know what I mean:confused: and not in a good way:rolleyes:
I have been messing about with the setting and comparing it to readings obtained through traditional R1+R2 tests and it’s not that far away.
Or should we be looking for another method/pressing to use an R2 lead (roughly 550m though)
 
Insulation testing between live conductors is wholly unrealistic for periodic inspection and testing (even domestic) and serves little purpose. You would be as likely to introduce a fault as find one.
Why do you think it would introduce a fault at 500V cables are designed to take IR testing in their stride for years upon years upon years? And why would it be unrealistic? Just because it takes longer?
 
As GN3 says at 3.10 on, it is not practical time wise to do IR between live conductors, more likely and useful between LN-E. However my ideal is to do so where practical. Don't get me wrong with 50 fluorescents at 4 m. height there is no way I am going to get up there and disconnect caps and tubes and then put it all back. No chance. But this would be a lim on the EICR. I think @Risteard is right about the chance of introducing a fault as when you dismantle etc. you may not put it back right or whatever. And of course dismantling is discouraged. I also agree with @westward10 that it makes up a small part of noted codes. Still it bugs me personally to leave out IR for L-N. despite the foregoing, it probably always will.
 

Reply to Commercial EIRC testing tips advice in the Periodic Inspection Reporting & Certification 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
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