Unable to find earth rod when doing EICR

[HappyHippyDad]

Evening chaps and SC...

I was carrying out an EICR today. I could not find the earth rod anywhere. I could see a 10mm leaving the CU and going down the wall of the porch then it goes at an angle through the wall (towards the outside) and then I cannot see anything else. Following the angle through the wall to the outside (20cm) leads to a conctrete step at the front entrance of the house. I think it's been concreted in.

I have 2 questions..

1. What do I put for 'presence and condition of earth electrode connection'? I guess it should be FI, but a degree of common sense has to be used as the chap is not going to let me dig up his front step. The resistance to earth of this cable was 63Ω.

2. What do I put as the Ze? Do I assume this is the Main Earth cable?

I can clearly see the pathway of the gas bonding. The water is bonded so this could be the Main Bond for the water but it's unlikely as there is a better pathway for the other 10mm leaving the CU to the water.

My thoughts are that I put NV for question 1 above and 63Ω for the Ze (with a note in the summary saying this is assuming that is the Main Earth cable)?

 

[markc123]

It is the point though.
FI should be used for instances where it is suspected either a code C1 or C2 is present, but cannot be discovered for whatever reason.
I’m amazed you’re saying this. It’s funny how IET wording can be interpreted. I fully understand the above point, but, stripping it back Further Investigation means exactly what it says on the tin to me, never mind what the ends of bells think who type all this carp up in an office stating it has to be used when a C1 or C2 is suspected.

Further Investigation means further investigation and this in my opinion warrants it. It’s not difficult to put a fresh accessible rod in and nor is it costly

“be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory

I’ve taken a few lines out of the quote you have given from the book. That to me means FI and unsatisfactory IF the client is unwilling to add a fresh rod OR allow the actual further investigation which would lead to revealing the true identity, Condition and suitability of the Rod.

I stand by what I’ve always been taught and that is a Rod must be accessible for testing and maintenance.

I love debates like this, makes our trade interesting.

 

[markc123]

It is the point though.
FI should be used for instances where it is suspected either a code C1 or C2 is present, but cannot be discovered for whatever reason.
I’m amazed you’re saying this. It’s funny how IET wording can be interpreted. I fully understand the above point, but, stripping it back Further Investigation means exactly what it says on the tin to me, never mind what the ends of bells think who type all this carp up in an office stating it has to be used when a C1 or C2 is suspected.

Further Investigation means further investigation and this in my opinion warrants it. It’s not difficult to put a fresh accessible rod in and nor is it costly

“be fully identified and further investigation may reveal a code C1 or C2 item, this should be recorded within Section K, given the code FI and marked as unsatisfactory

I’ve taken a few lines out of the quote you have given from the book. That to me means FI and unsatisfactory IF the client is unwilling to add a fresh rod OR allow the actual further investigation which would lead to revealing the true identity, Condition and suitability of the Rod.

I stand by what I’ve always been taught and that is a Rod must be accessible for testing and maintenance.

I love debates like this, makes our trade interesting.

 

[telectrix]

I’ve taken a few lines out of the quote you have given from the book. That to me means FI and unsatisfactory IF the client is unwilling to add a fresh rod OR allow the actual further investigation which would lead to revealing the true identity, Condition and suitability of the Rod.

I stand by what I’ve always been taught and that is a Rod must be accessible for testing and maintenance.

I love debates like this, makes our trade interesting.

i agreed with the previous post, but sod it. not bothering with the duplicate. too much effort. .

 

[KevinH]

Would have to agree with wirepuller's comments.
Could be anything on the end of that earth cable.....or nothing!

 

[Nigel]

Because for reasons laid out it could be testing fine today, and under different circumstances it would fail.

No one knows what it's connected too nor the condition of it. Just because it's technically passed doesn't mean it's common sense to make assumptions about it's actual suitability or safety. That's over reliance on testing imo.

Perhaps a better approach: If you don't know what you're testing, solve that problem first. Then test.

You cannot see the cables in the wall but we do not assume thay are wrong unless proved by testing.

No different here.

 

[KevinH]

This is true Essex, but we can normally check what's on the end of the cable right?

 

[Deuce]

You cannot see the cables in the wall but we do not assume thay are wrong unless proved by testing.

No different here.

It's totally different. You know it's a cable, you can easily access at least one end of it. You can identify the cable type and check it's suitable. Even if technically a length of cable is hidden between two concealed boxes on a circuit, you can still check that it exists by testing what you can access.

It is however possible the electrode does not exist, or is not connected. That cannot be confidently revealed by testing alone.

 

[markc123]

You cannot see the cables in the wall but we do not assume thay are wrong unless proved by testing.

No different here.

It absolutley is different.

Fault on circuits - breakers trip.

Main earth not stable - zs’s not stable - potentially for MCBS not to trip under fault conditions.

Can’t compare the main earth to circuits IMO. The problem with the main earth is that once it’s failed it could be too late and there isn’t any warning.

The main earth needs to be accessible for maintenance and testing. Period.

 

[Deuce]

It absolutley is different.

Fault on circuits - breakers trip.

Main earth not stable - zs’s not stable - potentially for MCBS not to trip under fault conditions.

Can’t compare the main earth to circuits IMO. The problem with the main earth is that once it’s failed it could be too late and there isn’t any warning.

The main earth needs to be accessible for maintenance and testing. Period.

That's another angle that keeps being skipped as people try to compare this to other situations.

This isn't a protected component... it IS the protection. We can all appreciate that houses get pulled around and often access to certain parts of the electrical installation are a nightmare, sometimes it's simply more practical to go on the weight of evidence, testing, and in the end to assume something is fine and there is no need for further investigation. But if you get ONE thing right, absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt. Get the earthing of the entire house right.

Question I suppose... Would you bet your life the electrode is present, correct and suitably attached? I wouldn't so I certainly wouldn't bet the life of my customer. I would bet £1000 it's all there, maybe more - I would almost certainly make a tidy return on that bet

But not a life. That's my stance.

 

[KevinH]

Helluva speech deuce, I reckon that sums up the answer to this thread!

 

[Deuce]

Helluva speech deuce, I reckon that sums up the answer to this thread!

Thanks

To be fair, I think a lot of folk want to argue specific technical points on these forums - which is fine, I do it too.

But on this occasion I can't accept there is any correct resolution other than starting by sinking a new rod. Any other debate about how to correctly evaluate the current situation is secondary to me. And I'm wondering why the OP hasn't come back yet to say they have had that conversation with the customer.

 

[Ian1981]

So if there’s a 10mm connected in the dB say for the protective bonding conductor to the gas but you can’t confirm the connection at the gas end where it’s connected (built in to the fabric of the building), you do a R2 test on the pipework with all parallel paths disconnected as far as reasonably practicable, you get a reading of say 0.03 ohms, do you FI the fact you can’t see the connection for inspection and testing purposes?
Bare in mind that all though it’s not the principle form of earthing to the installation it’s importance that the bonding is present and connected is paramount for ADS.

 

[KevinH]

Personally I would FI any bonding incoming gas/water pipes if connection not visible/accessible to be able to remove and get an R2 to confirm. Otherwise what's to say the 10mm from board is connected to the pipe at all? and that your reading on the pipe isn't just a parallel path that hasn't been found/disconnected?
Normally on a EICR form there is simply a pass or fail tick box for condition/accessibility to bonding connections so if I can't see it.....its a fail. Simple!

 

[Ian1981]

There is no pass or fail box, it’s a tick for confirmation of an acceptable test of continuity.
In the schedules of inspections there’s a box for the condition and accessibility of the bonding conductors and it’s outcome.
A tick or a suitable code if applicable
So for an FI code you think that there’s potential or immediate danger.
Even tho a continuity test has confirmed a low resistance to earth.
Depending on the reading say 0.03 ohms you could even calculate if it’s a realistic value depending on the estimated cable run from the dB to the gas service.
A reading so low is unlikely to be from another circuits cpc in my opinion.
Just my take on it

 

[KevinH]

Fair enough a tick box for confirmation of continuity. But can you confirm continuity without disconnecting and doing an R2 to prove its not broken?
If I can't see it to remove it, then I can't confirm, therefore I give it a code FI. Or am I being too harsh?