Hi All - UK based question regarding EICRs since the 2nd amendment

[LLPowerRanger]

Hi All

Happy new year to all!

First post but long timer lurker, so thanks for all the previous help!

Just wanted to clarify something I have been given some conflicting advice about, from two separate QS's for the NIC.

I was advised by one, that since the recent amendment the NIC no longer required us to complete R1+R2 tests (link at the board etc) on a circuit, if we had previous test certs and no changes had been made. Completing a Zs for the circuit was more than acceptable. This applied to radials, but not rings. We should continue to complete ring testing as normal, end to ends etc. Rings should be tested exactly the same, at the board, not the outlets etc.

A second Qs is advising me that there is no longer a requirement to complete the ring testing as per above and that Zs on a ring is acceptable, no need to do end to ends, unless your Zs's seem to be wildly different.

I am slightly confused as I fail to see how you can prove the continuity of a ring without doing the proper end to end testing? But their position is you should be limiting any dismantling/interference, so you shouldn't touch the rings or dismantle in that regard?

This is purely on EICRs, and we largely work in a commercial environment. I have been doing full ring testing regardless, but he is telling me I am wasting my time and has direct contact with the NIC, whereas I do not. So I know there is a chance I could be completely wrong!

Hope this all made sense and I welcome and advice.

Thank you!

 

[Pretty Mouth]

My work is almost all domestic, so I may approach things a little differently to you commercial guys. Regarding the tests that you mentioned, as I understand it, for an EICR you must prove continuity of CPC to all exposed conductive parts, and also prove disconnection times are met.

Continuity of CPC could be either R1+R2, or R2 wander lead.

If R1+R2 testing has been carried out, then ADS can be proved by either R1+R2+Ze, or live Zs. If R2 testing was carried out, then a live Zs test is necessary to prove ADS.

Alternatively, if a working RCD is protecting the circuit, ADS is already proven by continuity of CPC test, either method (see the last paragraph of 643.7.1 (a) and (b) ). No need to provide a Zs, either live or calculated.

I believe end-to-end tests are necessary on ring finals, as they will indicate that overcurrent protection is correct. I always test end-to-end for a ring, I don't always carry out fig. of 8 tests though.

 

[Flanders]

The NIC dont write the rules
Different assessor have different options
And the QS,s pass on there guidance. I would say Ring testing is required. I am always seeing broken ring circuits on EICR test results

 

[LLPowerRanger]

My work is almost all domestic, so I may approach things a little differently to you commercial guys. Regarding the tests that you mentioned, as I understand it, for an EICR you must prove continuity of CPC to all exposed conductive parts, and also prove disconnection times are met.

Continuity of CPC could be either R1+R2, or R2 wander lead.

If R1+R2 testing has been carried out, then ADS can be proved by either R1+R2+Ze, or live Zs. If R2 testing was carried out, then a live Zs test is necessary to prove ADS.

Alternatively, if a working RCD is protecting the circuit, ADS is already proven by continuity of CPC test, either method (see the last paragraph of 643.7.1 (a) and (b) ). No need to provide a Zs, either live or calculated.

I believe end-to-end tests are necessary on ring finals, as they will indicate that overcurrent protection is correct. I always test end-to-end for a ring, I don't always carry out fig. of 8 tests though.

Yeah that all makes sense to me. I've always done the ring testing like yous say, not normally the full fig 8 every time, but I at least do the maths in my head, based around my little r1 and r2 numbers to check the calculated Zs is in the right region when compared with the measured I would then take.

 

[westward10]

GN3 suggests in Table 3.4 that where there are records available ring final circuit continuity may not be necessary unless changes may have been made to the circuit.
These are not Regulations so make of that what you will.

 

[LLPowerRanger]

GN3 suggests in Table 3.4 that where there are records available ring final circuit continuity may not be necessary unless changes may have been made to the circuit.
These are not Regulations so make of that what you will.

Cheers that does seem like the most definitive guidance. Even though it still leaves it open to ambiguity by saying "may". Looks like its acceptable to not complete the full ring tests if you have previous records.

 

[newfutile]

I always measure ends to end in rings that have supposedly been untouched, people either forget or lie, also holes are drilled in walls and I'm fairly sure some rings were never tested at instalation, cables can come out of sockets especially after decorators have pulled them off the wall.

 

[cliffed]

Interesting question & always gonna get different views on this.
EICR testing seems to have changed over the years & not by us the Electricians, but reading different literature.
I personally can’t see any problem doing all tests especially in a Domestic Property.
Our Company prefer Ring main continuity, R1+R2 tests are usually omitted & Zs measurements to prove cpc integrity.
All other tests are performed, I personally like the R2 test it’s easier & requires-no disconnection of cpc’s which can be difficult