eicr

[Andy78]

This is all from the regs which states the main purpose of periodic testing is to verify that disconnection times are met and that minimal dismantling shall be done. However, a broken RFC can still return a compliant Zs.
I always carry out a full range of tests on all circuits that are contained within the scope of the report.

 

[1983]

Thank you everyone for the feed back I've always done the full test but after hearing this from my mates tutor who's teaching the 2395 and also showed me the tutors old eicr papers where all I see is n/a in the R1+R2 column got me thinking have I been wasiting time

 

[Andy78]

Thank you everyone for the feed back I've always done the full test but after hearing this from my mates tutor who's teaching the 2395 and also showed me the tutors old eicr papers where all I see is n/a in the R1+R2 column got me thinking have I been wasiting time

I can understand the thinking on a radial circuit. The purpose of an earth continuity test is to prove there is a valid fault path before energising. As the circuit is already energised then this is not a required test. As the EICR is to prove safety and that disconnection times are met then a Zs result should suffice.

BUT... The problem exists with ring final circuits that can have a valid earth path but still not have ring continuity.
Also, verification of R1+R2 lets you calculate your Zs to check against your live loop reading.

Get your mate to ask the tutor about RFC testing on a periodic inspection.

 

[HandySparks]

Ring continuity, plus a Zs at each socket for me. This complies with IET Guidance Note 3, whis says that a Zs may be used to verify the cpc.

 

[1983]

I can understand the thinking on a radial circuit. The purpose of an earth continuity test is to prove there is a valid fault path before energising. As the circuit is already energised then this is not a required test. As the EICR is to prove safety and that disconnection times are met then a Zs result should suffice.

BUT... The problem exists with ring final circuits that can have a valid earth path but still not have ring continuity.
Also, verification of R1+R2 lets you calculate your Zs to check against your live loop reading.

Get your mate to ask the tutor about RFC testing on a periodic inspection.

End to end zs rcd ir what he says Is necessary

 

[westward10]

The R1+R2 and R2 column are all blank although it states one should be entered. No end to ends of ring final conductors, I would say that schedule is incomplete.

 

[Risteard]

As stated, given that the installation is already energised there is nothing inherently wrong with proving cpc continuity with a live (Zs) test. This is also stated explicitly in Guidance Note 3. Just because there are boxes doesn't mean they all need to be filled in. (For instance there are boxes for phase-phase and phase-neutral insulation resistance - but I would suggest these tests are generally never done during periodic inspection and testing.)

Guidance Note 3 also suggests that where records exist for a ring final circuit, and there is no evidence of alterations or additions to that circuit, then carrying out the complete series of tests for continuity of ring final circuit conductors may be unnecessary. In this instance the end-to-end tests in isolation would seem reasonable.

 

[Risteard]

The R1+R2 and R2 column are all blank although it states one should be entered. No end to ends of ring final conductors, I would say that schedule is incomplete.

That's for new installations. I'll bet during an EICR that the insulation resistance readings between live conductors won't be filled out. There is nothing wrong with "LIM" being inserted in any of those boxes - just agree it with the client beforehand.

 

[Wilko]

... My mate even showed me his tutors eicr which shows he doesn't carry it out saying only needed on new installs only not on eicr as its already energised

I'm a simple fellow and for a condition report I read 621.2(iv) saying in part "identification of installation defects and departures ... that may give rise to danger". So if I can confirm rfc continuity then I can confirm the 32A mcb is appropriate for the 2.5mm (with other tests).

Maybe I have misunderstood?

 

[1983]

Most clients haven't got clue whats going on dont even go thru the certs just look for the satisfactory result. Which once issued to say it's safe for x amount of time how do we know what takes place after we leave and we can be hold accountable till the duration of the cert

 

[westward10]

That's for new installations. I'll bet during an EICR that the insulation resistance readings between live conductors won't be filled out. There is nothing wrong with "LIM" being inserted in any of those boxes - just agree it with the client beforehand.

The top of the column clearly states one should be listed, not put NA in each box.

 

[bigspark17]

I think Chris's Vid will answer your question
1983 may be a good idea to ask your mate to ask his Tutor what he thinks of the video.

That is for testing a new install covered under 2394 not 2395 which is periodic there are diferent requierments, it is down to the tester what test needs to be carried out and agreed with the customer and clearly stated on the cert

 

[bigspark17]

Thank you everyone for the feed back I've always done the full test but after hearing this from my mates tutor who's teaching the 2395 and also showed me the tutors old eicr papers where all I see is n/a in the R1+R2 column got me thinking have I been wasiting time

Welcome to the real world of testing

 

[Octopus]

Replies to date just go to show how this is interpreted. GN3 guide for me.

But I suspect that a considerable amount of testers don't do full dead tests as part of the eicr. Especially those done for estate agents

 

[Andy78]

The top of the column clearly states one should be listed, not put NA in each box.

The schedule of test results example in the regs is generic and common to both EIC and EICR though.