IR External Car Park lighting

[spraystone UK]

forum erroneous post removed

 

[cliffed]

Installation 50+ years old, not the best install, Swa cabling used about 400m buried & not ducted.
No real problems on the circuits Zs measurements are compliant, Insulation resistance measurements are poor.
Obviously a C2, waiting on client for an outcome but gut feeling nothing’s gonna happen, until complete breakdown of cabling.
Anyone’s thinking on this? will it be such a problem with the IR measurements, these lights have never been tested before LIM recorded on recent EICR

 

[DefyG]

How poor is poor?

 

[DefyG]

Obviously a C2 ?? How is it 'potentially dangerous'?

 

[cliffed]

Obviously a C2 ?? How is it 'potentially dangerous'?

Well it’s either a C2 or FI on the recommended classification codes.
Potentially dangerous that’s a good point

 

[cliffed]

How poor is poor?

M Ohm ranging from 0.034 & 0.35

 

[PS Electrics]

M Ohm ranging from 0.034 & 0.35

That is a FAIL and circuit needs disconnecting. Danger Notice if client refuses to do anything.

 

[DefyG]

I tend to disagree, its low, very low but still not 'potentially dangerous' (the criteria for a C2) so more a C3 (Improvement Recommended) than a C2 or FI.
Its not a FAIL on an EICR its either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory.

 

[cliffed]

I tend to disagree, its low, very low but still not 'potentially dangerous' (the criteria for a C2) so more a C3 (Improvement Recommended) than a C2 or FI.
Its not a FAIL on an EICR its either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory.

Good point the circuit other than the IR is ok protection MCB 6Amp B type, proper lamp columns Cut out connections.
FI would be disconnection of All lights & re test, this will be time consuming & scheduled to do those works will need to be decided by Client

 

[PS Electrics]

I tend to disagree, its low, very low but still not 'potentially dangerous' (the criteria for a C2) so more a C3 (Improvement Recommended) than a C2 or FI.
Its not a FAIL on an EICR its either Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory.

I wasn't referring to failing the EICR I was referring to failing the IR test.

 

[DefyG]

I wasn't referring to failing the EICR I was referring to failing the IR test.

Ah ok! I apply the same criteria to each aspect of an EICR, in that they (tests) are either satisfactory (tick or C3 etc) or unsatisfactory (C1,2 or FI)!

 

[brianmoooore]

Ah ok! I apply the same criteria to each aspect of an EICR, in that they (tests) are either satisfactory (tick or C3 etc) or unsatisfactory (C1,2 or FI)!

Not sure I agree with this, whatever the scams guidelines, or even the regs, may say.
Any IR resistance that a MFT can indicate, other than max of range, on a plastic cable with nothing connected to it, indicates existing damage or deterioration to that cable.
Without knowing exactly what the damage or deterioration is, then it has to be assumed that it can get worse, even catastrophically worse, at any time, so C2 or FI.

 

[cliffed]

Not sure I agree with this, whatever the scams guidelines, or even the regs, may say.
Any IR resistance that a MFT can indicate, other than max of range, on a plastic cable with nothing connected to it, indicates existing damage or deterioration to that cable.
Without knowing exactly what the damage or deterioration is, then it has to be assumed that it can get worse, even catastrophically worse, at any time, so C2 or FI.

Agree it will be complete deterioration of the cabling that will i think will decide the outcome.
This installation never been tested or recently been tested, & now the onus comes down to the Electrician.

 

[DefyG]

Agree it will be complete deterioration of the cabling that will i think will decide the outcome.
This installation never been tested or recently been tested, & now the onus comes down to the Electrician.

We'll have to 'agree to disagree' on this, and yes the onus comes down to the electrician carrying out the EICR. Its through his/her experience that they identify with a C1,2,3 etc situation.
Personnaly, I've never come across a low IR situation that I would consider as 'potentially dangerous'! and still hold that view in this post, but hey thats the beauty of forums like this, everyone can air their views rightly or wrongly.

 

[cliffed]

We'll have to 'agree to disagree' on this, and yes the onus comes down to the electrician carrying out the EICR. Its through his/her experience that they identify with a C1,2,3 etc situation.
Personnaly, I've never come across a low IR situation that I would consider as 'potentially dangerous'! and still hold that view in this post, but hey thats the beauty of forums like this, everyone can air their views rightly or wrongly.

Cheers & this situation only came to light

We'll have to 'agree to disagree' on this, and yes the onus comes down to the electrician carrying out the EICR. Its through his/her experience that they identify with a C1,2,3 etc situation.
Personnaly, I've never come across a low IR situation that I would consider as 'potentially dangerous'! and still hold that view in this post, but hey thats the beauty of forums like this, everyone can air their views rightly or wrongly.

Cheers, a report been submitted to the Client & suggests improvement, with the first option to disconnect all Light Columns & hopefully IR measurements will improve.