Easycert validation process

[andrew8902]

Hi. If I carry out a PIR and decide to not carry out a R1+R2 or R2 test, but instead use the EFLI test to prove continuity of protective conductors, Easycert fails the validation. The row turns red and tells me that I need to enter the R1+R2.
I thought R1+R2 was really for initial verification?

I am happy to be proved wrong tho. Reading GN3 p99 Note4 says that an EFLI test may be used where it is safe to do so

Cheers

 

[Dartlec]

Hi. If I carry out a PIR and decide to not carry out a R1+R2 or R2 test, but instead use the EFLI test to prove continuity of protective conductors, Easycert fails the validation. The row turns red and tells me that I need to enter the R1+R2.
I thought R1+R2 was really for initial verification?

I am happy to be proved wrong tho. Reading GN3 p99 Note4 says that an EFLI test may be used where it is safe to do so

Cheers

Not sure on the 'official' line for periodic testing, but some people seem to favour doing mostly dead tests on non-socket circuits these days including for EICRs, and since you usually have the conductor out anyway for IR or loop tests then it's not hugely more work - the Kewtech jump leads are great bits of kit for that.

R1+R2 should have been done before the circuit was initially energised of course, but in most domestic EICRS there is no previous paperwork, so you have no guarantee. EFLI could be using parallel paths, rather than the protective conductor.

There is also the issue that you can't always take an EFLI at a light switch if there are RCDs, if you need a 3 wire no trip test setup (yay for Megger 2 wire tests)

I find R1+R2 preferable when I'm having to do one with tenant working from home, as I can be sure that I am testing the correct circuit. and can do it circuit by circuit with minimal disruption on the key circuits.

The validation in EasyCert is mostly checking for accidentally missed fields or 'perfect results' than doing any clever 'electrical' checking - I often have to ignore it where an r2 reading is higher than 1.67 times.

You could put LIM in the field and it should accept it, or perhaps N/V for not verified as that is an option in other fields.

 

[dodger421]

Not sure on the 'official' line for periodic testing, but some people seem to favour doing mostly dead tests on non-socket circuits these days including for EICRs, and since you usually have the conductor out anyway for IR or loop tests then it's not hugely more work - the Kewtech jump leads are great bits of kit for that.

R1+R2 should have been done before the circuit was initially energised of course, but in most domestic EICRS there is no previous paperwork, so you have no guarantee. EFLI could be using parallel paths, rather than the protective conductor.

There is also the issue that you can't always take an EFLI at a light switch if there are RCDs, if you need a 3 wire no trip test setup (yay for Megger 2 wire tests)

It’s mostly to do with reducing the amount of live testing and the risks associated with it as per the EAWR I think.

When I did 2391-52 last year the instructors and examiners really pushed calculating Zs by measuring Ze and R1+R2 for both the periodic and initial verification circuits. Partly they said this was to save time in the practical exam, but they also really emphasised the safety aspect. Covers were expected to be on all accessories and all faceplates reattached for IR testing onwards. Only the front cover of the CU/DB was to be left off for the rest of the live tests, but refitted before functional testing.

You were allowed to Zs test at the sockets during the functional testing if you wanted to and/or had time to but it wasn’t required.

A particular instructor I had was vehemently against putting a temporary link between the earth bar and the line conductors even though GN3 and the OSG say this is perfectly valid. He wanted you to join each line and CPC in a terminal strip or Wago in turn. He did explain that he’d seen a lot of people forget to remove the link before energising, both on site and in the classroom so I understand his reasoning but it still shows that all teaching can be very subjective.

 

[Dartlec]

It’s mostly to do with reducing the amount of live testing and the risks associated with it as per the EAWR I think.

When I did 2391-52 last year the instructors and examiners really pushed calculating Zs by measuring Ze and R1+R2 for both the periodic and initial verification circuits. Partly they said this was to save time in the practical exam, but they also really emphasised the safety aspect. Covers were expected to be on all accessories and all faceplates reattached for IR testing onwards. Only the front cover of the CU/DB was to be left off for the rest of the live tests, but refitted before functional testing.

You were allowed to Zs test at the sockets during the functional testing if you wanted to and/or had time to but it wasn’t required.

A particular instructor I had was vehemently against putting a temporary link between the earth bar and the line conductors even though GN3 and the OSG say this is perfectly valid. He wanted you to join each line and CPC in a terminal strip or Wago in turn. He did explain that he’d seen a lot of people forget to remove the link before energising, both on site and in the classroom so I understand his reasoning but it still shows that all teaching can be very subjective.

I wonder if it is also partly to do with the "uplift" you get with some RCDs, or the fact that the methods of no trip RCD testing can often give quite inconsistent readings

 

[dodger421]

I dare say that comes into it too.

I think they did recommend R2 testing only for existing installations in the real world, but I can’t remember what their solution was for getting a Ze when you can’t isolate the installation or remove parallel paths.

It have been enquiry and/or assume worst case figures or it might have been just measure with the earth connected like you do for PEFC/PSC and use that.

 

[loz2754]

I get around the Easycert validation of R1+R2 by using the menu item to fill all empty boxes with "---", after I've filled in all the other circuit details.

I might email Easycert to see if they would change the validation process to allow N/A in the R1+R2 box to pass validation. They've adopted a few of my suggestions in the past.

 

[andrew8902]

Not sure on the 'official' line for periodic testing, but some people seem to favour doing mostly dead tests on non-socket circuits these days including for EICRs, and since you usually have the conductor out anyway for IR or loop tests then it's not hugely more work - the Kewtech jump leads are great bits of kit for that.

R1+R2 should have been done before the circuit was initially energised of course, but in most domestic EICRS there is no previous paperwork, so you have no guarantee. EFLI could be using parallel paths, rather than the protective conductor.

There is also the issue that you can't always take an EFLI at a light switch if there are RCDs, if you need a 3 wire no trip test setup (yay for Megger 2 wire tests)

I find R1+R2 preferable when I'm having to do one with tenant working from home, as I can be sure that I am testing the correct circuit. and can do it circuit by circuit with minimal disruption on the key circuits.

The validation in EasyCert is mostly checking for accidentally missed fields or 'perfect results' than doing any clever 'electrical' checking - I often have to ignore it where an r2 reading is higher than 1.67 times.

You could put LIM in the field and it should accept it, or perhaps N/V for not verified as that is an option in other fields.

Thanks for that. Do you have any idea why GN3 states that when doing an IR test (L&N-CPC) that you have to leave the CPC for that final circuit in the earth bar? I don't see a problem if I removed it???

 

[dodger421]

Thanks for that. Do you have any idea why GN3 states that when doing an IR test (L&N-CPC) that you have to leave the CPC for that final circuit in the earth bar? I don't see a problem if I removed it???

IR testing should be conducted with all protective conductors connected to the MET or CU/DB earth bar. It ensures you detect things like bare conductors touching cable tray, other extraneous metalwork or the CPC of a different circuit.

Basically you need to test IR to all possible paths of return to earth, not just between the CPC and the conductors of that circuit.

 

[andrew8902]

IR testing should be conducted with all protective conductors connected to the MET or CU/DB earth bar. It ensures you detect things like bare conductors touching cable tray, other extraneous metalwork or the CPC of a different circuit.

Basically you need to test IR to all possible paths of return to earth, not just between the CPC and the conductors of that circuit.

Thanks

 

[Grey Master]

IR testing should be conducted with all protective conductors connected to the MET or CU/DB earth bar. It ensures you detect things like bare conductors touching cable tray, other extraneous metalwork or the CPC of a different circuit.

Basically you need to test IR to all possible paths of return to earth, not just between the CPC and the conductors of that circuit.

Especially when testing lighting circuits with no cpc. Proves there is no fault to earth via another circuit.