EICR R1+R2 testing requirements

[cliffed]

What’s your thoughts on this, house testing I would say no argument against this, mains isolation & tests can be carried out.
Commercial properties where isolation is not possible i certainly would not do a R1+R2 test, also knowing the EOL near impossible.
Electrician’s are now deducting the Ze from their Zs & putting this on the cert, its so blatant & obvious, why are they even doing that.
It’s similar to “Fudging” Insulation Resistance measurements.
I certainly if required would do a R2 test, but this seems a No, No, amongst shall I say younger Sparkies.
During a EICR there is no requirement to do the R1+ R2

 

[Jock from the north]

What’s your thoughts on this, house testing I would say no argument against this, mains isolation & tests can be carried out.
Commercial properties where isolation is not possible i certainly would not do a R1+R2 test, also knowing the EOL near impossible.
Electrician’s are now deducting the Ze from their Zs & putting this on the cert, its so blatant & obvious, why are they even doing that.
It’s similar to “Fudging” Insulation Resistance measurements.
I certainly if required would do a R2 test, but this seems a No, No, amongst shall I say younger Sparkies.
During a EICR there is no requirement to do the R1+ R2

There are limitations that can be agreed with client including the reasons.if you can't isolate some supplies then that would be up to the client and yourself to organise something like out of hours works at there expense .it's the client that needs the report for insurance or compliance .in the real world it can be a tough one though.if you were doing your r2 test you could just take the zs from highest reading which would be close to end of line if all parrallel paths were disconnected which takes you back to the problem of not being able to isolate circuit to perform test .the main benefit of r1+r2 is polarity is confirmed that's why everyone leans to that method .

 

[Risteard]

Ask yourself what the purpose of dead continuity testing is.

Is it to verify an Earth path before energising the installation? And if so what are you trying to achieve if the installation is already energised? Can a live test verify this Earth path in these circumstances?

 

[Jock from the north]

What’s your thoughts on this, house testing I would say no argument against this, mains isolation & tests can be carried out.
Commercial properties where isolation is not possible i certainly would not do a R1+R2 test, also knowing the EOL near impossible.
Electrician’s are now deducting the Ze from their Zs & putting this on the cert, its so blatant & obvious, why are they even doing that.
It’s similar to “Fudging” Insulation Resistance measurements.
I certainly if required would do a R2 test, but this seems a No, No, amongst shall I say younger Sparkies.
During a EICR there is no requirement to do the R1+ R2

What’s your thoughts on this, house testing I would say no argument against this, mains isolation & tests can be carried out.
Commercial properties where isolation is not possible i certainly would not do a R1+R2 test, also knowing the EOL near impossible.
Electrician’s are now deducting the Ze from their Zs & putting this on the cert, its so blatant & obvious, why are they even doing that.
It’s similar to “Fudging” Insulation Resistance measurements.
I certainly if required would do a R2 test, but this seems a No, No, amongst shall I say younger Sparkies.
During a EICR there is no requirement to do the R1+ R2

Possibly it's because all the training that younger and older sparkies do on say initial verification are taught by all the different schemes like select ,niceic,napit etc that the r1+r2 is the preferred method and its a real faf having wandering leads trailing thru say a Reception area or office.i agree there is a tendency for sparks to find end of line and do there r1+r2 but with class 1 lights etc that dosnt prove each light is earthed just that the cpc reaches last light.any class 1 equipment/lights should be checked which the r2 method would achieve.real life problems comes with access ,working at heights etc and although you get these long r2 continuity poles who is to say they can penatrate the paint or get to an earthing point on some light fittings .I realise r2 testing would be the only viable test method for large buildings .the goal I suppose is to measure earth continuity regardless which method you use.

 

[Risteard]

Possibly it's because all the training that younger and older sparkies do on say initial verification are taught by all the different schemes like select ,niceic,napit etc that the r1+r2 is the preferred method and its a real faf having wandering leads trailing thru say a Reception area or office.i agree there is a tendency for sparks to find end of line and do there r1+r2 but with class 1 lights etc that dosnt prove each light is earthed just that the cpc reaches last light.any class 1 equipment/lights should be checked which the r2 method would achieve.real life problems comes with access ,working at heights etc and although you get these long r2 continuity poles who is to say they can penatrate the paint or get to an earthing point on some light fittings .I realise r2 testing would be the only viable test method for large buildings .the goal I suppose is to measure earth continuity regardless which method you use.

In a department store, school or a factory, for example, would you consider running a 50m wander lead to be viable? It would pose an unacceptable trip hazard to workers and the general public. Live testing is a more realistic means.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

the main benefit of r1+r2 is polarity is confirmed

* technically it doesn't on its own, as it wouldn't catch a L-E reversal

 

[westward10]

Someone getting their r and R mixed up.

 

[Jock from the north]

In a department store, school or a factory, for example, would you consider running a 50m wander lead to be viable? It would pose an unacceptable trip hazard to workers and the general public. Live testing is a more realistic means.

In a department store, school or a factory, for example, would you consider running a 50m wander lead to be viable? It would pose an unacceptable trip hazard to workers and the general public. Live testing is a more realistic means.

No I wouldnt I would just use my efli tester .yes your right it would pose a health and safety risk but live testing in an office or department store also poses health and safety risks if there are staff or members of public walking around you .I don't think testing and wiring installation work should be treated differently. If its a department store works should be carried out of hours .it's not always possible of course and that's when suitable risk assesments should be in place.i merely meant that in larger buildings if you were required to complete an earth continuity test then R2 might be your only option

 

[Jock from the north]

Someone getting their r and R mixed up.

Someone getting their r and R mixed up.

Me R