EICR queries.

[Robo]

Iv just complete an eicr. I have a few queries.

1. Page 2.part k.I'm unable to get hold of the details for the Characterisitics of primary supply over current protection devices- can I put lim in these boxes.

2.page 2. Part L. Main protective bonding. There's no bonding as the mains water and heating mains come into the building. Iv done a continuity test from the main earth of the panel board to both water and heating mains. It's <0.05 ohms. Iv also done an insulation test mad it's 0.00 ohms. So Iv given it a c2. In the boxes for conductor material and CSA ETC do I put a (x) or c2??


any help would b appreciated


Robo

 

[telectrix]

1. if you don't know, put N/V.

2. C3 for non-accessible connections. in comments, put connection verified by measurement.

above is my personal take. stand to be corrected.

 

[NickD]

There's no bonding as the mains water and heating mains come into the building. Iv done a continuity test from the main earth of the panel board to both water and heating mains. It's <0.05 ohms. Iv also done an insulation test mad it's 0.00 ohms. So Iv given it a c2. In the boxes for conductor material and CSA ETC do I put a (x) or c2??

You've looked and there is deffo no bonding or there is scope for the bonding to be there but inaccessible? Any sign of a MPBC at the CU / MET?

What are you IR testing that's coming out at 0.00ohms and how are you going about the test?

 

[Robo]

Iv looked and at the points of entry (floor level) there is no bonding to any of the services between the floor and ceiling as it goes into loft space. There's sign of a Mbpc at a db down stream.

im IR testing between the main earth at the panel board and the point of entry to the building on both services. As it was bellow 1667k ohms I thought it needed bonding?The building s TNS from a feeder pillar and has a heating main which loops into various building.

 

[urbanmonkey]

I've had similar readings before with no bonding present on oil or water mains, continuity came through immersion heater/boiler as discovered by disconnecting the cpc from the immersion/ boiler radial and testing again. I gave it a c2 as I then determined no bonding present. c3 for not accessible if you still get the same reading. Usually not that simple all the time to be fair, I've found water piping tagged with the protective conductor going to the cpc of a ring socket on the other side of the wall behind the bathroom more than once....


'edit' just seen your last post, makes most of mine irrelevant to the situation.

 

[SirKit Breaker]

How did you insulation test the main protective bonding conductor and why? I don't want to knock your enthusiasm or have a pop at you for doing your best, but i feel that you are a bit out of your depth doing periodic inspection and testing. I am not trying to imply that you are a bad Electrician, but i would advise you to buddy up with someone to help you find your way a bit and get the required experience. You can and will be held accountable if you get it wrong to the point where you kill or injure yourself or someone else.

Cheers.............Howard

 

[urbanmonkey]

I think he is Ir testing between the MET and the pipes as they enter the building. Not sure why tho as the continuity reading of 0.05ohms obviously lends itself to an IR reading of 0.00

 

[Robo]

I haven't done much periodic testing. I generally do new installs or minor works. Hence why I want to get it correct. Iv read a lot of posts on bonding. I may have got it round my neck a bit but that's why I'm asking for the help. I did the continuity check from MET to services as I couldn't see bonding on either service. And I got a reading of 0.05 ohms. So is that satisfactory. Or do I need to c2 or c3 it because I can not find it as it enters building a recommend one be installed?? I did the IR test to further check to see if it need to be bonded.> 1667k ohms is ok and < 1667k ohms needs bonding. Cheers

 

[Richard Burns]

If there is Main bonding present to the services there should be bonding conductors in the MET, these would give you csa to record.
However if the other end of the bonding conductor is not visible because it is integrated into the building fabric then a continuity test from the disconnected bonding conductor to the point of entry of the service should read (in most cases) <0.05Ω. Obviously where there are a lot of bonding conductors this can be a tedious process.
If this is the case then you can C3 the lack of accessibility / capability to disconnect to test of the bonding conductor connections, LIM the presence of correct labellling and not code the actual bonding.

If there are no bonding conductors at the MET and no sign of connections at the incoming main services (and you can see these incomers) then it is reasonable to assume that there is no main bonding present and class this as C2.

If you measure continuity from the MET to an incoming service it is likely, say, for instance, that a cpc in a boiler could also be connected to the water supply pipe and so provide a reasonable continuity reading, this would not mean that main bonding was present.

 

[sparkymalarky]

If there is Main bonding present to the services there should be bonding conductors in the MET, these would give you csa to record.
However if the other end of the bonding conductor is not visible because it is integrated into the building fabric then a continuity test from the disconnected bonding conductor to the point of entry of the service should read (in most cases) <0.05Ω. Obviously where there are a lot of bonding conductors this can be a tedious process.
If this is the case then you can C3 the lack of accessibility / capability to disconnect to test of the bonding conductor connections, LIM the presence of correct labellling and not code the actual bonding.

If there are no bonding conductors at the MET and no sign of connections at the incoming main services (and you can see these incomers) then it is reasonable to assume that there is no main bonding present and class this as C2.

If you measure continuity from the MET to an incoming service it is likely, say, for instance, that a cpc in a boiler could also be connected to the water supply pipe and so provide a reasonable continuity reading, this would not mean that main bonding was present.

This is very similar to what I would do. Also, record your recommendations with the note 'Further Investigation Required'. This is important if you cannot find the protective bonding conductor that is.

 

[telectrix]

How did you insulation test the main protective bonding conductor and why? I don't want to knock your enthusiasm or have a pop at you for doing your best, but i feel that you are a bit out of your depth doing periodic inspection and testing. I am not trying to imply that you are a bad Electrician, but i would advise you to buddy up with someone to help you find your way a bit and get the required experience. You can and will be held accountable if you get it wrong to the point where you kill or injure yourself or someone else.



Cheers.............Howard

to be fair to OP, i think he's just got a bit confused with the test to confirm whether or not pipework is extraneous ( IR MET to pipe , generally over 22K is the figure saying pipe is not extraneous. he's used 1667 ).