general testing questions

[just add water sparks]

On a PIR test to confirm Zs values i obviously go to thr BRB page 48.But when do i use the rule of thumb i.e 80% Method ?. I understand there are differences between a cold install to one that is in service as resistance changes when cables are warmer.
On previous posts i have noted to qualify for a extraneous part to be bonded a test can be made by using a insulation resistance tester set on 500v connecting one end to the MET and the other to the metal part in question.The reading shall not be greater than 0.022 meg ohms.On a large installation is the MET at the main intake or could it be at a sub board?Other posts and various books relate to a value of 0.05 OHMS to confirm if a bond is adequate does this relate to the main bond or supplementary and does MET mean main intake or sub board,I hope this makes sense

 

[IQ Electrical]

The 80% factor is applied to the maximum values of earth fault loop impedance listed in BS 7671:2008.

Example, a 60898 B32 device is listed with a maximum Zs of 1.44 Ohms. This value is then multiplied by 0.80 to give a value of 1.15 Ohms.

Your measured/calculated value of Zs should then be < 1.15 Ohms.

The extraneous conductive part test described in Guidance Note 8 must be conducted from the Main Earth Terminal of which there is only 1 per installation.

If the value of the test is > 22KOhms then the part does not meet the definition of an extraneous conductive part.

Main protective bonding conductors should have a resistance of 0.05 Ohms or less.

This equates to maximum runs of 15 Metres for 6mm and 25 Metres for 10mm

 

[just add water sparks]

Thank you IQ for your time and answers it was well appreciated. Just to clarify the 80% Applies to both a periodic and a new install.Measuring extraneous conductive part i guess you automatically auto null leads on continuity range and then switch over to the insulation resistance for the 500v test.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Yes, it applies to both.

The test leads are not nulled on IR tests, what's 0.10 or so of an Ohm when you're measuring thousands (KOhms) or millions (MOhms) of Ohms.

 

[just add water sparks]

ironically have just been on a job where there are remote outbuildings situated 170 metres from the intake met (to test adequate bond) so this seems quite a distance even for the purpose made R2 leads which are between 50 metres to 100 metres long,Any sugestions please i know the obvious would be to buy an extra couple of leads and join the two or three together and would you still omit auto-nulling leads as this is a fair distance.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Use a conductor in the supply cable.
Don't quite understand the reference to auto nulling the leads?

 

[just add water sparks]

just to clarify i was refering to question (1 ) testing if extraneous conductive are adequate by testing with an insulation resistance tester and long leads and does not meet requirements if >22Kohms i was just using the long lead r2 method were you refering to an r1+r2 method which does not apply to this situation?

 

[Chr!s]

Main protective bonding conductors should have a resistance of 0.05 Ohms or less

I believe this is a misinterpretation IQ.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

We only have to correct the tabulated values cos some **** at the IEE didn't produce the OSG till well after the BRB. In the OSG they have been corrected for us.

Cheers.........Howard

 

[pushrod]

I believe this is a misinterpretation IQ.

GN3 p35 talks about test method 2 results on bonding conductors being in the order of 0.05ohms or less.

 

[Chr!s]

GN3 p35 talks about test method 2 results on bonding conductors being in the order of 0.05ohms or less.

Must be a different GN3 to mine then

 

[IQ Electrical]

Must be a different GN3 to mine then

You are right, I should have made the distinction between MPB conductors and SBC between extraneous-conductive parts!

I apologise, hope the OP didn't pay any attention to the post that he thanked me for!

 

[Chr!s]

Had the nic try to tell me bonding should be no more than .05, i asked him to show me where it asks for this, he tried the GN3, so i explained to him that its referring to a test between two points which can not be disconnected for example.

 

[Chr!s]

As far as i am aware the only restriction would be the equation used for SBC, and that would be between two simultaneous parts not the overall length.

The BRB only mentions csa.

 

[pushrod]

Had the nic try to tell me bonding should be no more than .005, i asked him to show me where it asks for this, he tried the GN3, so i explained to him that its referring to a test between two points which can not be disconnected for example.

Hi Chris - very interesting. I'm aware that brb does not specify resistances. I had this very sort of discussion with the tutor who was teaching me the 2391. I was saying so what if a mpb conductor had to be 30metres long , that would put it over 0.05Ω he said you would have to increase the csa.

AFAIK the brb does not ask you to test mpb conductors if you can visually confirm continuity. However, if you can not visually confirm continuity a test would have to be done. What result would you be looking at if you were testing between a gas and water pipe (two extraneous-conductive-parts) - isn't gn3 suggesting it should be this 0.05 value?

edit : reading gn3 again 2nd bottom paragraph P35 it talks about using test method 2 where the bonding clamps have been "built in" then connect across extraneous-conductive-parts and check for the 0.05 value. The extraneous conductors could be gas and water? I don't know why it doesn't say between
extraneous-conductive-part and the MET

Are you and IQ talking of supplementary protective bonding conductors ? Surely they connect between an exposed-conductive-part and an extraneous-conductive-part?

 

[just add water sparks]

i am well and truly confused now.great are 'nt they abbreviations. yesterday i drove my m.p.v to do a p.i.r on an install it was wired in p.v.c and some old v.i.r had some good Zs's tho.Not sure on some cable sizes as g.a.t.s was not taken into calcs da da da lol only joking guys.I know are my few brain cells right in telling me right that m p b is main ? bond and s b c is supplementary bond connection.Has the figure gone from 0.05 to .005 and not sure what figure i am looking for & what i am testing now.genuinely all help is appreciated this game is certainly ambiguous ain't it

 

[pushrod]

i am well and truly confused now.great are 'nt they abbreviations. yesterday i drove my m.p.v to do a p.i.r on an install it was wired in p.v.c and some old v.i.r had some good Zs's tho.Not sure on some cable sizes as g.a.t.s was not taken into calcs da da da lol only joking guys.I know are my few brain cells right in telling me right that m p b is main ? bond and s b c is supplementary bond connection.Has the figure gone from 0.05 to .005 and not sure what figure i am looking for & what i am testing now.genuinely all help is appreciated this game is certainly ambiguous ain't it

know how you feel lol - certainly keeps you on your toes with all the abbreviations especially when people make up their own (not this thread)
MPBC =main protective bonding conductor
SPBC = supplementary protective bonding conductor .

The correct figure is 0.05 ohms it is what it applies to is the problem !!!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

just to clarify i was refering to question (1 ) testing if extraneous conductive are adequate by testing with an insulation resistance tester and long leads and does not meet requirements if >22Kohms i was just using the long lead r2 method were you refering to an r1+r2 method which does not apply to this situation?

No I'm not refering r1+r2.
I was suggesting that rather than obtaining extra leads and joining them together, that you use a conductor out of the supply cable as a long lead.

 

[Chr!s]

Hi Chris - very interesting. I'm aware that brb does not specify resistances. I had this very sort of discussion with the tutor who was teaching me the 2391. I was saying so what if a mpb conductor had to be 30metres long , that would put it over 0.05Ω he said you would have to increase the csa.

It a common misconception, i remember my 2391 trying to tell us this, i explained to him he was incorrect, if you read GN3 carefully you will see that its not placing the 0.05 on the overall length. As i said above the nic also gave the same advice, so i explained and they agreed.

AFAIK the brb does not ask you to test mpb conductors if you can visually confirm continuity. However, if you can not visually confirm continuity a test would have to be done. What result would you be looking at if you were testing between a gas and water pipe (two extraneous-conductive-parts) - isn't gn3 suggesting it should be this 0.05 value?

GN3 is referring to where say the structural steel is used as a bonding conductor for example and can not be removed, testing between two points the resistance should be no more than 0.05.

What your looking to achieve is to limit the touch voltage, so you could use the equation used for effectiveness of supplementary bonding as this is in effect what your trying to achieve. That would need to bee one hell of a length of of cable between two points especially when the minimum is 6mm.

edit : reading gn3 again 2nd bottom paragraph P35 it talks about using test method 2 where the bonding clamps have been "built in" then connect across extraneous-conductive-parts and check for the 0.05 value. The extraneous conductors could be gas and water? I don't know why it doesn't say between
extraneous-conductive-part and the MET

Well its referring to any two points, this could be two of many in one given installation.

Are you and IQ talking of supplementary protective bonding conductors ? Surely they connect between an exposed-conductive-part and an extraneous-conductive-part?

Im talking about Main protective bonding though in principle your trying to achieve the same as supplementary bonding conductor limiting touch voltage.

Oh and yes the figure is 0.05 ohms my typo sorry

 

[Chr!s]

Pushrod, i dont have my GN3 to hand, but does it mention simultaneous?