Electrical Test sheets & Fudged Figures

[Beyond Espresso]

I need some advice, I've been doing the OM manuals for installations and come across an electrical test sheet which I believe is fudged.

Background of the story, is the handwritten one (NICEIC System was playing up) went walkies. Lost, never to be found. The QS produced the handwritten one, but didn't give me the opportunity to look at it and check whose handwriting it was. So week later I get a test sheet via email, with these figures on. Checked them out, ALL seemed completely fudged. The readings were too perfect. For a fact I know that building was tired, It wasn't a full strip out and installation. So you'd expect figures up and down.

What's the consequences of a fudged NICEIC certificate? (I've not issued it to the client yet)

 

[westward10]

Need more info, what figures and how did you check them out.

 

[Pete999]

I need some advice, I've been doing the OM manuals for installations and come across an electrical test sheet which I believe is fudged.

Background of the story, is the handwritten one (NICEIC System was playing up) went walkies. Lost, never to be found. The QS produced the handwritten one, but didn't give me the opportunity to look at it and check whose handwriting it was. So week later I get a test sheet via email, with these figures on. Checked them out, ALL seemed completely fudged. The readings were too perfect. For a fact I know that building was tired, It wasn't a full strip out and installation. So you'd expect figures up and down.

What's the consequences of a fudged NICEIC certificate? (I've not issued it to the client yet)

I see you have no electrical experience, so you may not be able to answer my question, what readings are / where all to perfect? as to the consequences of a fudged certificate, if the only evidence you have is a bit hazy, it would be difficult to prove unless some sample tests were repeated, for comparison with the ones you have, you could report your thoughts to the QS and his boss, or the other option would be to contact the NICEIC, although there are some who think that is a waste of time, Can you scan the certificate and post a copy, erasing all the names of course.

 

[Beyond Espresso]

I got someone who teaches electrical to check it over. Because I knew the original figures had gone missing and I was expecting this to turn up.
here's his reply

It looks fabricated- never in the real world do the values of R1 and R2 when added to the external value of Ze perfectly match the recorded value of Zs.


Sorry if that is technical but its simply the resistance of each circuit which then determines a number of safety features.


Yes its fudged


So on this job the ZE is 0.17
1 = 0.16 ZS = 0.33
2 = 0.19 ZS = 0.36
3 = 0.21 ZS = 0.38
5 = 0.23 ZS = 0.40

Also, My lads label up 1TP OR 4L1 So on so forth. But on this particular cert its just 1,2,3,4

Cheers

 

[Beyond Espresso]

There isn't just 4 readings - I just gave an extract

Regards

 

[Pete999]

I got someone who teaches electrical to check it over. Because I knew the original figures had gone missing and I was expecting this to turn up.
here's his reply

It looks fabricated- never in the real world do the values of R1 and R2 when added to the external value of Ze perfectly match the recorded value of Zs.


Sorry if that is technical but its simply the resistance of each circuit which then determines a number of safety features.


Yes its fudged


So on this job the ZE is 0.17
1 = 0.16 ZS = 0.33
2 = 0.19 ZS = 0.36
3 = 0.21 ZS = 0.38
5 = 0.23 ZS = 0.40

Also, My lads label up 1TP OR 4L1 So on so forth. But on this particular cert its just 1,2,3,4

Cheers

I must admit they do all look like calculated results, are these the only results you are concerned over?

 

[Pete999]

There isn't just 4 readings - I just gave an extract

Regards

Hard to draw any real conclusions in that case

 

[Beyond Espresso]

Just this test sheet - There is 13 readings on this test sheet.
I used a handful of previous sheets to check the readings against, and none of the flagged up any concerns.

 

[westward10]

Do the values of Zs seem okay because I wouldn't lose sleep over some calculated continuity values. As for numbering the circuits there are no hard rules to this as long as they are clear.

 

[Beyond Espresso]

Hard to draw any real conclusions in that case

Only extract for the forum purposes. I have 13 readings in total. THE WHOLE of the test sheet

 

[Pete999]

Only extract for the forum purposes. I have 13 readings in total. THE WHOLE of the test sheet

What all Ze / Zs readings, what are the Zs readings for sockets, lighting, others?

 

[Des 56]

Inspection and testing Guidance note 3
Earth fault loop impedance may be determined by
1 Measurement of R1+R2 and adding Ze
2 Direct measurement using a earth fault loop impedance tester

 

[Pete999]

Inspection and testing Guidance note 3
Earth fault loop impedance may be determined by
1 Measurement of R1+R2 and adding Ze
2 Direct measurement using a earth fault loop impedance tester

I may be barking up the wrong tree, and I agree with you on this, is it not bending the rules a bit as the results given are calculated readings of R1+R2 ergo R1+R2 = Ze+Zs at least I think that is what has been said

 

[Des 56]

Well that may be the case Pete,however,the R1+R2 "is" a measured test and adding that to a measured Ze is whats allowed
There does not seem to be any compulsion to record a direct measurement, only that the reading is measured and step 1 is a measured reading

 

[Pete999]

Well that may be the case Pete,however,the R1+R2 "is" a measured test and adding that to a measured Ze is whats allowed
There does not seem to be any compulsion to record a direct measurement, only that the reading is measured and step 1 is a measured reading

Agree Des but the readings (Fudged or not) indicate he has calculated R1+R2 by adding Ze to Zs that's all I was trying to say , crikey I'm even confusing myself

 

[Des 56]

I'm looking at it the other way
The tester has measured and recorded R1+R2 and added it quite legitimately to the also measured Ze.
He comes up with a perfect Zs,whereas the op thinks that measured Zs is dodgy (because he thinks R1+R2 and adding Ze is a calculated reading)

I'm now getting flummoxed by what is being suggested
I think the op needs to expand on what he thinks is actually being fudged

 

[Pete999]

I'm looking at it the other way
The tester has measured and recorded R1+R2 and added it quite legitimately to the also measured Ze.
He comes up with a perfect Zs,whereas the op thinks that measured Zs is dodgy (because he thinks R1+R2 and adding Ze is a calculated reading)

I'm now getting flummoxed by what is being suggested
I think the op needs to expand on what he thinks is actually being fudged

I'm going for a lie down in a dark room

 

[Des 56]

I'm going for a lie down in a dark room

Move over,I think we could all now do with a lie down

 

[Pete999]

Move over,I think we could all now do with a lie down

Not on your life matey

 

[westward10]

This is clearly a case of measure Zs and deduct Ze for the continuity no one surely does it the other way on a Periodic. So OP are there no insulation resistance readings.

 

[Des 56]

This is clearly a case of measure Zs and deduct Ze for the continuity no one surely does it the other way on a Periodic. So OP are there no insulation resistance readings.

I think what you state is spot on ,however,he can only prove its fudged if new tests contradict the readings he has been given
I am making the point to him that what he has been given is a legitimate if unusual means of obtaining Zs on a periodic but there are 2 ways to skin the cat

 

[Ian1981]

Zs-ze should not be used to calculate R1+R2 on any test as zs is a live test done with all bonding conductors in place.
Parallel paths will affect your zs result and will always be lower than the zs=ze+R1+R2 calculated method.
Is that what we are on about ha?

 

[Pete999]

Zs-ze should not be used to calculate R1+R2 on any test as zs is a live test done with all bonding conductors in place.
Parallel paths will affect your zs result and will always be lower than the zs=ze+R1+R2 calculated method.
Is that what we are on about ha?

Don't know, got a headache now

 

[Ian1981]

Is this a eicr or a eic?
R1+R2 is not a required test on a eicr only on initial verification

 

[Beyond Espresso]

I'm back. I'll SS the results and put on here in a moment

 

[westward10]

Zs-ze should not be used to calculate R1+R2 on any test as zs is a live test done with all bonding conductors in place.
Parallel paths will affect your zs result and will always be lower than the zs=ze+R1+R2 calculated method.
Is that what we are on about ha?

In the great scheme of things the continuity reading for radial circuits on an EICR schedule is pretty irrelevant however it was achieved whether you view the method rightly or wrongly let's face it some people just tick the column or leave it blank as the Zs proves continuity.

 

[Ian1981]

In the great scheme of things the continuity reading for radial circuits on an EICR schedule is pretty irrelevant however it was achieved whether you view the method rightly or wrongly let's face it some people just tick the column or leave it blank as the Zs proves continuity.

Agreed. The zs test alone is required to verify that the protective device will operate within the required time allowed.

 

[Beyond Espresso]

I've attached SS PDF - Without giving any details away

regards

and Thank you everyone who has contributed so far.

 

[Beyond Espresso]

Is this a eicr or a eic?
R1+R2 is not a required test on a eicr only on initial verification

Full electrical Installation report.

 

[SparkyChick]

I'd be suspicious of the RCD test result times if I was handed that.

 

[Ian1981]

Full electrical Installation report.

ThenR1+R2 values are required to be measured only.
Zs can be measured by a live test but I would expect the results to be that of a lower value than the calculated method of zs=ze+R1+R2

 

[Beyond Espresso]

I'm going for a lie down in a dark room

I'm asking - do you think its fudged? Without me having to spend to send another body down to the job and get them to retest. Can anyone see ANYTHING suss about the test sheet I've just uploaded?

I am not an electrician in any shape of form, However I do check figures against what the lads send me on the low and what gets printed on a test sheet. Because I am certain both the CM/QS are pulling the wool over the company.

At the end of the day, I'm there to protect the company and the lads on site, So if I don't check these things then i'm as bad as they are.

 

[Pete999]

I'm asking - do you think its fudged? Without me having to spend to send another body down to the job and get them to retest. Can anyone see ANYTHING suss about the test sheet I've just uploaded?

I am not an electrician in any shape of form, However I do check figures against what the lads send me on the low and what gets printed on a test sheet. Because I am certain both the CM/QS are pulling the wool over the company.

At the end of the day, I'm there to protect the company and the lads on site, So if I don't check these things then i'm as bad as they are.

Sorry Mate "you are not an Electrician" how do you know what you are checking is correct?

 

[The Ghost]

RCD test result times

those RCBO are very twitchy I often get figures like that but more like 22 @ 5 x. I think its very hard to believe that dado sockets (cct 8 and other rings) upstairs have an R1/R2 of 0.11 must be a circa 10m cct I would have thought more like 30m total giving approx 0.48. What distance does the circuit go to? And thinking about it what you said about the Zs = Ze + R1/R2 is so spot on in every case it looks like its calculated. They could have faked it better by varying the figures.

 

[westward10]

The only thing which I doubt is correct is the line/neutral insulation resistance readings which are rarely achievable on an EICR. As for similar rcbo trip times that isn't impossible they are similar, very often Memshield 2 devices will give 39/29 all the time, yesterday I had four in a Wylex NHX all identical. The R1+R2 for the ring finals are incorrect and the Zs for these circuits don't tally with the continuity readings.

 

[Beyond Espresso]

Sorry Mate "you are not an Electrician" how do you know what you are checking is correct?

Hence me asking for help on this forum. If someone could look at the test sheet I uploaded. Tell me, do you see anything suss.
I sent this to the independent person I use, and he noticed straight away. I had my suspicions when I received it, because the original figures were MISSING.
QS/CM said the electrician did it online, The electrician said he didn't because it crashed mid way, so did a blank handwritten TS for us, and the CM/QS lost it.

 

[SparkyChick]

I'm not disputing they could be valid results, but last week I installed two RCBOs, brand new, identical in every way... operation times were wildly different... all within required times, but radically different. Those on that test sheet look too similar across that many devices.

Edit:-

And having just read Westward's post, I'm happy to bow to you guys who are more experienced with these matters. I've not had much to do with RCBOs in all honesty, they just look too similar.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There's a few things that don't add up.
System is TN-S, yet the Ze is is more applicable for TN-C-S.
Test button for RCD on circuit 12 has been operated?
RCD test times don't look right.
I would expect a quicker time on 5x test than on 1x, yet they are either the same or slower?
Nominal voltage is 400V for single phase?

 

[Beyond Espresso]

The R1+R2 for the ringame finals are incorrect and the Zs for these circuits don't tally with the continuity readings

That's all I wanted to know - Thank you. This is the answer I needed.

 

[westward10]

As an approximation the Zs for circuit 8 should be about 0.41, circuit 15, 0.42 and circuit 16, 0.43 however the values of end to end continuity look incorrect for the size of conductors unless the cpcs have been incorrectly sized and should be 1.5 as opposed to 2.5.