Unable to find earth rod when doing EICR

[HappyHippyDad]

Evening chaps and SC...

I was carrying out an EICR today. I could not find the earth rod anywhere. I could see a 10mm leaving the CU and going down the wall of the porch then it goes at an angle through the wall (towards the outside) and then I cannot see anything else. Following the angle through the wall to the outside (20cm) leads to a conctrete step at the front entrance of the house. I think it's been concreted in.

I have 2 questions..

1. What do I put for 'presence and condition of earth electrode connection'? I guess it should be FI, but a degree of common sense has to be used as the chap is not going to let me dig up his front step. The resistance to earth of this cable was 63Ω.

2. What do I put as the Ze? Do I assume this is the Main Earth cable?

I can clearly see the pathway of the gas bonding. The water is bonded so this could be the Main Bond for the water but it's unlikely as there is a better pathway for the other 10mm leaving the CU to the water.

My thoughts are that I put NV for question 1 above and 63Ω for the Ze (with a note in the summary saying this is assuming that is the Main Earth cable)?

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Could put LIM as the customer won’t allow you to dig up his concrete steps.

 

[Octopus]

NV for the TT rod

And a comment that you don’t know what it is!

 

[oracle]

Measure it as a Ze, with a Lim for the concrete, as SL has offered.

 

[buzzlightyear]

buy a metal detector next time ,has above .

 

[HappyHippyDad]

Yes, I didn't think of Lim. I agree the Limitations before hand, but i see know reason why you cant have limitations throughout the job that were unforeseen before hand.
Cheers guys.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

I do not think a satisfactory can be applied to an EICR if the means and condition of the main earth cannot be verified. It would be FI for me, resulting in an unsatisfactory. If a remedial is requested I would forget the existing and install a new rod in an accessible location.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Why optimistic Murdoch? Would you guess the means of earthing on an EICR?

 

[buzzlightyear]

Yes, I didn't think of Lim. I agree the Limitations before hand, but i see know reason why you cant have limitations throughout the job.
Cheers guys.

you could put down f1,and go back later armed with a jack hammer.

​

 

[Octopus]

Why optimistic Murdoch? Would you guess the means of earthing on an EICR?

I wasn't sure TBH how to rate it ........... so thought optimistic was appropriate ............... but I've just been re-reading the BPG no 4 and this situation isn't even mentioned .........

So I would agree that FI is probably the best course of action

But many wouldn't bother looking for the rod after they have a satisfactory reading.

I did an EICR recently, the Ze for the installation was good, I knew exactly where the rod was but couldn't get the inspection cover off - so I simply put a comment on the EICR...

 

[Deleted member 9648]

Not being able to remove an inspection cover and a wire disappearing into concrete to an unknown termination are very different things.

 

[Dave OCD]

As long as you have a decent reading and you're sure it's the earth and not one of the main bonds I wouldn't be concerned,but as it's not visible I'd be tempted to recommend an annual check of the Ze .

 

[TJ Anderson]

I can clearly see the pathway of the gas bonding. The water is bonded so this could be the Main Bond for the water but it's unlikely as there is a better pathway for the other 10mm leaving the CU to the water.

I know it's hindsight now, but you can always confirm bonding conductors with them disconnected using long lead test if unsure.

I think it just down to your judgement. As Ze is very acceptable, I would say either FI or LIM are perfectly reasonable.

Out of interest what sort of Zs's were you getting with bonds reconnected?

 

[buzzlightyear]

if you cant see it to confirm there is one earth rod . weather you are getting good reading you . you must confirm that you have see it . it might be a bicycle planted in the ground .

 

[Dave OCD]

'Oh bugger I've forgotten the earth rod, ah I know lets bury that old bike frame and connect to that instead !'

 

[Deleted member 9648]

double post

 

[TJ Anderson]

if you cant see it to confirm there is one earth rod . weather you are getting good reading you . you must confirm that you have see it . it might be a bicycle planted in the ground .

If you were installing and making additons to the system I would agree. EICR is just a report and you can limit whatever you like if agreed with client.

 

[Deuce]

Can't you just turn a problem into a job by giving a quote to sink a new rod and switch to that?

Customer can either accept an upfront cost or cost of regular testing of the existing solution.

 

[Deleted member 9648]

As long as you have a decent reading and you're sure it's the earth and not one of the main bonds I wouldn't be concerned,but as it's not visible I'd be tempted to recommend an annual check of the Ze .

if you cant see it to confirm there is one earth rod . weather you are getting good reading you . you must confirm that you have see it . it might be a bicycle planted in the ground .

Agree with Buzz.....more realistically it could be connected to a water or gas pipe. You cannot assume when it comes to means of earthing. It MUST be verified.

 

[Octopus]

Can't you just turn a problem into a job by giving a quote to sink a new rod and switch to that?

Customer can either accept an upfront cost or cost of regular testing of the existing solution.

The reality is that the customer can simply ignore your advice - but that's their choice

 

[Deuce]

The reality is that the customer can simply ignore your advice - but that's their choice

Either way it's the correct thing for the professional to suggest. The current setup can't be assessed so best to either correct it or walk away.

I suppose it always helps to be quite firm 'this is not correct'.... 'this will get flagged when if you need to sell'... 'for all I know this is only currently testing acceptably because the ground in damp, there may be no rod at all and on the day you need it there may be a different result'...

 

[TJ Anderson]

Either way it's the correct thing for the professional to suggest. The current setup can't be assessed so best to either correct it or walk away.

I suppose it always helps to be quite firm 'this is not correct'.... 'this will get flagged when if you need to sell'... 'for all I know this is only currently testing acceptably because the ground in damp, there may be no rod at all and on the day you need it there may be a different result'...

On a more positive note, at least you know it's not going to be disturbed lol

 

[Risteard]

Yes, I didn't think of Lim. I agree the Limitations before hand, but i see know reason why you cant have limitations throughout the job that were unforeseen before hand.
Cheers guys.

You are forgetting that there are two distinct types of limitations:

1) Agreed limitations, which you have alluded to, and;

2) Operational limitations. These aren't a matter of agreement - they are a matter of not being able to do something for whatever reason (e.g. presence of a suspected ACM means you cannot disturb something).

 

[Deuce]

On a more positive note, at least you know it's not going to be disturbed lol

True. No debate about what constitutes accessible on this one! It's basically fine so long as it a) tests ok and b) the rod actually exists... I'm going to stick with best advice being a new rod

 

[markc123]

Evening chaps and SC...

I was carrying out an EICR today. I could not find the earth rod anywhere. I could see a 10mm leaving the CU and going down the wall of the porch then it goes at an angle through the wall (towards the outside) and then I cannot see anything else. Following the angle through the wall to the outside (20cm) leads to a conctrete step at the front entrance of the house. I think it's been concreted in.

I have 2 questions..

1. What do I put for 'presence and condition of earth electrode connection'? I guess it should be FI, but a degree of common sense has to be used as the chap is not going to let me dig up his front step. The resistance to earth of this cable was 63Ω.

2. What do I put as the Ze? Do I assume this is the Main Earth cable?

I can clearly see the pathway of the gas bonding. The water is bonded so this could be the Main Bond for the water but it's unlikely as there is a better pathway for the other 10mm leaving the CU to the water.

My thoughts are that I put NV for question 1 above and 63Ω for the Ze (with a note in the summary saying this is assuming that is the Main Earth cable)?

You have 2 questions, I have 1:

Why do you automatically presume Rod?

What’s to say you haven’t got an earth plate electrode?

Anyway, let’s presume Rod. You have no idea whether:
A) the rod is of suitable material & size despite the decent reading.
B) whether it’s correctly installed via a clamp and not just wrapped round said Rod.
C) there’s a safety notice alongside the rod which is a requirement.
D) whether there’s an inspection pit installed above.

All the above are requirements and because you can’t verify this, the rod is unidentified, inaccessible & unsuitable for testing and maintenance purposes. Therefore it’s a FI on the certificate alongside an unsatisfactory. I can’t understand some of these comments on this thread if I’m being honest, it’s black or white with me and can’t see how a LIM is acceptable on something so important.

I’d personally explain to the client that they’ll be getting an unsatisfactory report unless they pay X amount (not that much if we’re being fair) and to have another rod installed. I’m sure once this is explained they’ll cough up.

New Rod the way to go IMO.

 

[Deuce]

You have 2 questions, I have 1:

Why do you automatically presume Rod?

What’s to say you haven’t got an earth plate electrode?

Anyway, let’s presume Rod. You have no idea whether:
A) the rod is of suitable material & size despite the decent reading.
B) whether it’s correctly installed via a clamp and not just wrapped round said Rod.
C) there’s a safety notice alongside the rod which is a requirement.
D) whether there’s an inspection pit installed above.

All the above are requirements and because you can’t verify this, the rod is unidentified, inaccessible & unsuitable for testing and maintenance purposes. Therefore it’s a FI on the certificate alongside an unsatisfactory. I can’t understand some of these comments on this thread if I’m being honest, it’s black or white with me and can’t see how a LIM is acceptable on something so important.

I’d personally explain to the client that they’ll be getting an unsatisfactory report unless they pay X amount (not that much if we’re being fair) and to have another rod installed. I’m sure once this is explained they’ll cough up.

New Rod the way to go IMO.

Exactly, it's not really relevant if it tests ok, for all we know the OP could be testing just a trailing earth conductor which happens to currently be pushed a few inches into some damp substrate. Come mid summer when it's dried out a bit, the results could be totally different.

If you get to the point that you don't even know what you're testing, then it's time to take a step back and address that problem.

New rod. It's the most important termination in the entire property so it's the last to take any sort of chance on.

 

[Nigel]

Common sense needs to prevail. So long as fault protection is correct how can you fail this cert?

I would consider shortening the retest period.

 

[Nigel]

You have 2 questions, I have 1:

Why do you automatically presume Rod?

What’s to say you haven’t got an earth plate electrode?

Anyway, let’s presume Rod. You have no idea whether:
A) the rod is of suitable material & size despite the decent reading.
B) whether it’s correctly installed via a clamp and not just wrapped round said Rod.
C) there’s a safety notice alongside the rod which is a requirement.
D) whether there’s an inspection pit installed above.

All the above are requirements and because you can’t verify this, the rod is unidentified, inaccessible & unsuitable for testing and maintenance purposes. Therefore it’s a FI on the certificate alongside an unsatisfactory. I can’t understand some of these comments on this thread if I’m being honest, it’s black or white with me and can’t see how a LIM is acceptable on something so important.

I’d personally explain to the client that they’ll be getting an unsatisfactory report unless they pay X amount (not that much if we’re being fair) and to have another rod installed. I’m sure once this is explained they’ll cough up.

New Rod the way to go IMO.

All the above are C3 recommendations and do not warrant an ‘Unsatisfactory’ report.

 

[Nigel]

Exactly, it's not really relevant if it tests ok, for all we know the OP could be testing just a trailing earth conductor which happens to currently be pushed a few inches into some damp substrate. Come mid summer when it's dried out a bit, the results could be totally different.

If you get to the point that you don't even know what you're testing, then it's time to take a step back and address that problem.

New rod. It's the most important termination in the entire property so it's the last to take any sort of chance on.

It is completely relevant that it tests ok. What are you on about?

 

[Deuce]

Common sense needs to prevail. So long as fault protection is correct how can you fail this cert?

I would consider shortening the retest period.

Because for reasons laid out it could be testing fine today, and under different circumstances it would fail.

No one knows what it's connected too nor the condition of it. Just because it's technically passed doesn't mean it's common sense to make assumptions about it's actual suitability or safety. That's over reliance on testing imo.

Perhaps a better approach: If you don't know what you're testing, solve that problem first. Then test.

 

[Deuce]

It is completely relevant that it tests ok. What are you on about?

I explained in the text you quoted.

 

[buzzlightyear]

the only way of finding out is to start digging .if there is a rod in . by using a big digger .

 

[Deuce]

Have you tested it? "yes".
Did it pass? "yes".
What did you test? "Dunno".

I can't be convinced that is satisfactory. Lots of arrangements could result in a successful test with suitable resistance, especially in damp conditions such as this time of year. If the builder compacted a load of hardcore on top of the rod and smashed the conductor termination to the rod to pieces, it would still probably test OK if the substrate is damp around the detached conductor.

It's probably fine, I accent that. But there has to be a cut off where you just don't need to take the risk professionally, and I think it's easily justified when you don't know what it is you're testing/assessing.

 

[markc123]

All the above are C3 recommendations and do not warrant an ‘Unsatisfactory’ report.

Let me start by saying I read a lot of your posts Essex and I know you know your ---- & respect your opinions.

However, I can’t back this pal I just can’t.

1) You have no clue what you’re testing, or how many.
2) external conditions could influence the decent readings when in reality you have a fairly poor connection. I understand the OPs reading of 63ohms is a monumental jump downfrom the required >100ohm readings for a stable earth. >200oohm by the book. It’s still possible though.
3) You can’t use a dedicated earth electrode tester properly. I understand there is a way which can be used in said scenario, not one that anyone really uses due to the fact the test readings won’t be accurate if you have electrodes connected in parallel.

Slight tanjent some of the points above, I know. But, for me, it’s enough to steer me to an FI and unsatisfactory. You just can’t guarantee your Zs’s are stable. I understand the shortened test period and I could maybe back it, however the cost of another EICR to be undertaken in 6months time will outweigh the cost of another rod installed.

For me it literally comes down to the fact that the electrode isn’t accessible for testing and maintenance despite the 63ohm sound reading.

New Rod I stand by.

Night al!

 

[buzzlightyear]

its down to the inspector on testing weather putting down a N/V or F1
he is the one will have the conscience .but the next person who test after him will say what a F**k idiot .

 

[markc123]

EICRs are open to so much interpretation it’s actually ridiculous.

Let me put it this way. There’s no way I’d be able to confidently hand over an EICR without verifying the type, condition and connection of electrode. End of the day, like said above, it’s down to the assessor. You make your bed and you lie in it.

 

[Deuce]

its down to the inspector on testing weather putting down a N/V or F1
he is the one will have the conscience .but the next person who test after him will say what a F**k idiot .

That's my feeling. It's a not that it's wrong as such, at the end of the day the test results are OK (good, in fact) so it's not 'wrong'.

But it's also clearly not a satisfactory situation regardless of the test result. And as you say, you could hardly sign off on it with pride knowing that down the line someone else is going to encounter the same situation.

One day that somebody will encourage the owner to put a new rod in. Might as well be this day, and might as well be the OP asking the question in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

'Oh bugger I've forgotten the earth rod, ah I know lets bury that old bike frame and connect to that instead !'

Works for me.

 

[buzzlightyear]

the op could say to the customer heads or tails. Heads i win new rod
tails i will not put one in .

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Do we all accept that an EICR is a report on the condition of an installation at the time of the Inspection and Testing?

Can anyone explain why either the water pipe or gas pipe would be used as an electrode, and then bonded?

Is 63Ohms a good or bad reading for an earth electrode?
Does it indicate any instability?

Finally, who believes that the outcome of the Further Investigation would lead to a code C1 or C2?

 

[Deuce]

Do we all accept that an EICR is a report on the condition of an installation at the time of the Inspection and Testing?

Can anyone explain why either the water pipe or gas pipe would be used as an electrode, and then bonded?

Is 63Ohms a good or bad reading for an earth electrode?
Does it indicate any instability?

Finally, who believes that the outcome of the Further Investigation would lead to a code C1 or C2?

I see where you're going.

I would argue that the condition of an installation goes beyond just testing though. I could test something with a cracked case and hanging off the wall and still get a pass result. Who knows what state the electrode is in? If it's still even there and/or connected suitably.

And in any case, just because you're called out to issue an EICR doesn't mean that upon arrival you can't identify a problem worth addressing ahead of doing the EICR. It's not all about technically not doing anything wrong, it's about doing the right thing out of care for your customer too.

The outcome of further investigation would likely not result in C1 or 2. I fully expect that if the obstruction was removed the conductor would be revealed, connected soundly to a suitable electrode. But that's not the point. The point is that there is a chance it's not OK, and it's a chance the OP doesn't need to take.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

It is the point though.
FI should be used for instances where it is suspected either a code C1 or C2 is present, but cannot be discovered for whatever reason.

This is copied from the notes on the 18th edition EICR model form:

“Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E.”

 

[Deuce]

It is the point though.
FI should be used for instances where it is suspected either a code C1 or C2 is present, but cannot be discovered for whatever reason.

This is copied from the notes on the 18th edition EICR model form:

“Where an observation requires further investigation (FI) because the inspection has revealed an apparent deficiency which could not, owing to the extent or limitations of the inspection, be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory in Section E.”

Ok that's correct. I'm not saying there is cause to suspect a C1/C2. I am saying that if a critical part of the installation is inaccessible for visual inspection/maintenance, then that is a problem to fix ahead of testing.

The OP asked what code to use, and fair enough - there is no evidence to suspect it's unsafe. But there is also no evidence to conclusively prove it is safe. Safety would require both acceptable test results and also knowledge that what you're testing actually exists and exists in a state that can be expected to remain stable until the next test. So that for me is the first hurdle to jump: Fix the fact its inaccessible. In this case, a new rod.

I feel we're debating technicalities when we must all surely know that the connection in question shouldn't be hidden beneath a block of immovable concrete

 

[Ian1981]

If you don’t suspect a C1 or C2 code then you can’t possibly code something FI as by doing so you as the inspector suspect a potential danger is present but due to limitations you can’t see it.
If people give an FI for this then they must do when they can’t see a protective bonding conductor at the connected end of the gas or water but having confirmed the service has a low resistance to earth.
C3 for me

 

[HappyHippyDad]

I know it's hindsight now, but you can always confirm bonding conductors with them disconnected using long lead test if unsure.

I think it just down to your judgement. As Ze is very acceptable, I would say either FI or LIM are perfectly reasonable.

Out of interest what sort of Zs's were you getting with bonds reconnected?

Zs's were around 8 ohms.

 

[markc123]

It is the point though.
FI should be used for instances where it is suspected either a code C1 or C2 is present, but cannot be discovered for whatever reason.
I’m amazed you’re saying this. It’s funny how IET wording can be interpreted. I fully understand the above point, but, stripping it back Further Investigation means exactly what it says on the tin to me, never mind what the ends of bells think who type all this carp up in an office stating it has to be used when a C1 or C2 is suspected.

Further Investigation means further investigation and this in my opinion warrants it. It’s not difficult to put a fresh accessible rod in and nor is it costly

“be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory

I’ve taken a few lines out of the quote you have given from the book. That to me means FI and unsatisfactory IF the client is unwilling to add a fresh rod OR allow the actual further investigation which would lead to revealing the true identity, Condition and suitability of the Rod.

I stand by what I’ve always been taught and that is a Rod must be accessible for testing and maintenance.

I love debates like this, makes our trade interesting.

 

[markc123]

It is the point though.
FI should be used for instances where it is suspected either a code C1 or C2 is present, but cannot be discovered for whatever reason.
I’m amazed you’re saying this. It’s funny how IET wording can be interpreted. I fully understand the above point, but, stripping it back Further Investigation means exactly what it says on the tin to me, never mind what the ends of bells think who type all this carp up in an office stating it has to be used when a C1 or C2 is suspected.

Further Investigation means further investigation and this in my opinion warrants it. It’s not difficult to put a fresh accessible rod in and nor is it costly

“be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory

I’ve taken a few lines out of the quote you have given from the book. That to me means FI and unsatisfactory IF the client is unwilling to add a fresh rod OR allow the actual further investigation which would lead to revealing the true identity, Condition and suitability of the Rod.

I stand by what I’ve always been taught and that is a Rod must be accessible for testing and maintenance.

I love debates like this, makes our trade interesting.

 

[telectrix]

I’ve taken a few lines out of the quote you have given from the book. That to me means FI and unsatisfactory IF the client is unwilling to add a fresh rod OR allow the actual further investigation which would lead to revealing the true identity, Condition and suitability of the Rod.

I stand by what I’ve always been taught and that is a Rod must be accessible for testing and maintenance.

I love debates like this, makes our trade interesting.

i agreed with the previous post, but sod it. not bothering with the duplicate. too much effort. .

 

[KevinH]

Would have to agree with wirepuller's comments.
Could be anything on the end of that earth cable.....or nothing!

 

[Nigel]

Because for reasons laid out it could be testing fine today, and under different circumstances it would fail.

No one knows what it's connected too nor the condition of it. Just because it's technically passed doesn't mean it's common sense to make assumptions about it's actual suitability or safety. That's over reliance on testing imo.

Perhaps a better approach: If you don't know what you're testing, solve that problem first. Then test.

You cannot see the cables in the wall but we do not assume thay are wrong unless proved by testing.

No different here.