Ring Circuit Continuity on EICR (Figure of 8 ?)

[Des 56]

I seem to remember a suggestion that ring circuit continuity does not have to be tested where there has been no alterations or additions to that circuit since a previous test and an installation certificate or EICR is available with the results

Here's a thought Why dismantle a circuit to verify what is already known

 

[SirKit Breaker]

Des you are bang on, and it also says that careful consideration should be given before dismantling or removing accessories as you could make a bad situation a lot worse. Some things are better left alone.

Cheers………..Howard

 

[gnuuser]

I seem to remember a suggestion that ring circuit continuity does not have to be tested where there has been no alterations or additions to that circuit since a previous test and an installation certificate or EICR is available with the results

Here's a thought Why dismantle a circuit to verify what is already known

the only reason i can think of is possible alterations that may not be visible
(ive seen this on a home inspection where a furnace transformer was hidden behind a plaster board wall)

 

[Des 56]

the only reason i can think of is possible alterations that may not be visible


Fair comment Gnuuser
Question to you, I thought ring finals were not used in that grand country of yours


I think my statement could be used in commercial or industrial situations where procedures are monitored
However,for a domestic customer or other less strict ind/com I would not heed my own suggestion

 

[gnuuser]

true almost all our systems are radials but on occasion i find some old houses wired with ring circuits (not very often though)

haha at first time i found one in an old house(way back when i was an apprentice) i had a hell of a time figuring out why it had power on both ends of the hot core when they were unhooked
the master was laughing his butt off
he knew what it was as soon as he saw the readings on the meter
we used to test the cores for the live one and label it for supply

 

[Badged01]

true almost all our systems are radials but on occasion i find some old houses wired with ring circuits

Do you think that may have been done by some convicts we deported to you? ...... or was that just Australia?

 

[The_Wanderer]

Problem is i find, many Sparkie's assume doing a test for an EICR (or Periodic as i still can't stop calling them!) is the same as an initial test certificate on a new installation. When its not, much of the testing becomes impractical in for example a working commercial premises etc. Ie: you can't go unplugging everything to 200 desks or taking 100s of lights etc. In fact we do plenty of EICRs at work without even isolating anything! Piles of limitations, which i dont agree with myself but clients insist we do EICRs whilst there still trading etc!

Consequently i can see no reason to do the full figure of 8 testing on a EICR? Unless of course you suspect or have reason to believe theres issues with a particular ring. All you need to do on an EICR is the R1 and R2 continuity readings.

 

[trev]

If there are items which can't be powered down because of inconvenience to the client then you either arrange the test for a time when you can power down or agree a limitation.

An EICR which has not had the full spread of tests performed and does not have limitations on it is worthless. Suppose you did not have any limitations and gave a satisfactory report then it was discovered that there were 3 interconnections on an RFC then at the very least you're going to look stupid.

If it does have limitations then you're saying the installation is satisfactory subject to the listed limitations

Each to their own however.

 

[The_Wanderer]

Like i said Trev, i totally agree with you..!

But i suppose it comes down to costs, clients like high street banks etc just pay for our firm to come in during the day and do EICRs, probably cheaper than arranging expensive out of hours work.. But its been this way for decades (i tested some bank i last did 5yrs ago recently).

And rest assured dont think i put "satisfactory" on any EICR in past 2-3 years as testing not thorough enough to satisfy me.. But clients happy i assume.

Sadly i think a lot of the clients just see a 5yr EICR as a tick box. "have we had our bank checked and up to date? yes we have TICK". "was there any C1 or C2 faults we need to deal with? no TICK.. Come back in 5yrs....

I actually long for doing an EICR properly!

If there are items which can't be powered down because of inconvenience to the client then you either arrange the test for a time when you can power down or agree a limitation.

An EICR which has not had the full spread of tests performed and does not have limitations on it is worthless. Suppose you did not have any limitations and gave a satisfactory report then it was discovered that there were 3 interconnections on an RFC then at the very least you're going to look stupid.

If it does have limitations then you're saying the installation is satisfactory subject to the listed limitations

Each to their own however.

 

[trev]

I was using "you" and "you're" like the royal we mate.

Please don't think "we" were accusing you of not testing properly

 

[Meggerman]

Like i said Trev, i totally agree with you..!

But i suppose it comes down to costs, clients like high street banks etc just pay for our firm to come in during the day and do EICRs, probably cheaper than arranging expensive out of hours work.. But its been this way for decades (i tested some bank i last did 5yrs ago recently).

And rest assured dont think i put "satisfactory" on any EICR in past 2-3 years as testing not thorough enough to satisfy me.. But clients happy i assume.

Sadly i think a lot of the clients just see a 5yr EICR as a tick box. "have we had our bank checked and up to date? yes we have TICK". "was there any C1 or C2 faults we need to deal with? no TICK.. Come back in 5yrs....

I actually long for doing an EICR properly!

Well if you have not got C1 or C2 observations then it is satisfactory

 

[The_Wanderer]

Very true, I'm was being hypothetical and failing....lol
Theres usually plenty of C2 however when you can't trace circuits as you can't turn stuff off, vicious circle

Well if you have not got C1 or C2 observations then it is satisfactory

 

[trev]

Yes but if there are tests that have been missed because of limitations or because someone (see what I did there) couldn't be bothered or didn't have enough experience then you could be giving a satisfactory report where C1s and C2s exist.

By agreeing a limitation and sticking that on the report then you're covering your arse because if something goes wrong and you end up in a wooden panelled room with blokes in wigs asking you searching questions you have it in black and white that a certain test was not performed because powering the circuit down was forbidden by the client.

That's all I'm saying

 

[The_Wanderer]

I didn't, i was just on my soapbox after a bad day! lol
I lost count the amount of times i told my manager "these reports are pointless and not worth the paper they written on". He usually agrees but states thats the clients brief... Ah well

I was using "you" and "you're" like the royal we mate.

Please don't think "we" were accusing you of not testing properly

 

[trev]

I've had similar arguments, on a decent homes programme a few years back the lads doing the I&Ts on existing installs were expected to do 4x3 bedroom houses a day.
I refused to do it.