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)?

 

[Ian1981]

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?

It’s one of them isn’t it?
It’s down to the inspector at the end of the day and it’s clear we all have different opinions so maybe there’s no right or wrong answer and you have to justify your actions with yourself.
It’s usually the kitchen fitters fault for boxing over the pipework so let’s blame him

 

[KevinH]

Yep. Its a funny old game. Oh I love my job

 

[Deleted member 26818]

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?

Well, if you believe there is no earthing (which would warrant a code C2), then your FI would be fair.

 

[Nigel]

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.

Is there a specified type of electrode that can only be used?

 

[Nigel]

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.

A TT would not be relying on MCBs for fault protection due to the unreliable earth.

 

[Nigel]

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!

Mental.

 

[Deuce]

Is there a specified type of electrode that can only be used?

I don't know why you would need to ask that question..? You have argued a somewhat minority view on this thread, and resorted to ever more peripheral technicalities to make your point. And now you ask me a rather basic question about the selection of electrode?

Anyway, any type is fine so long as it's installed as per regulation. But in some places, certain materials could prove a very poor choice long term. That's a great reason to leave them accessible, for visual inspection. Corrosion tends to occur top down initially as this is where the material has most access to air, the lower part being effectively in an anaerobic enclosure. Although in the end the corrosion will spread uniformly. This means there is a good opportunity to get an early warning if the material selected is corroding much faster than would be expected.

As corrosion will start top down, it's also useful to be able to see the clamp to check for corrosion around it's contact area with the electrode.

And once again, in this case - it would also be useful to know it actually exists and is still connected.

 

[Nigel]

I don't know why you would need to ask that question..? You have argued a somewhat minority view on this thread, and resorted to ever more peripheral technicalities to make your point. And now you ask me a rather basic question about the selection of electrode?

Anyway, any type is fine so long as it's installed as per regulation. But in some places, certain materials could prove a very poor choice long term. That's a great reason to leave them accessible, for visual inspection. Corrosion tends to occur top down initially as this is where the material has most access to air, the lower part being effectively in an anaerobic enclosure. Although in the end the corrosion will spread uniformly. This means there is a good opportunity to get an early warning if the material selected is corroding much faster than would be expected.

As corrosion will start top down, it's also useful to be able to see the clamp to check for corrosion around it's contact area with the electrode.

And once again, in this case - it would also be useful to know it actually exists and is still connected.

I am sorry mate but you are talking absolute tosh. You have presented zero evidence to back up your stance other than that you want to see it.

I agree a C3 but would you dig up the complete rod to inspect it on every EICR? I mean who knows what the state could be under ground. Surely you would want to check the whole rod?

Also you would want to inspect fully every cpc throughout the installation. I mean it could go to anywhere once in the wall couldn’t it?

 

[Deuce]

I am sorry mate but you are talking absolute tosh. You have presented zero evidence to back up your stance other than that you want to see it.

I agree a C3 but would you dig up the complete rod to inspect it on every EICR? I mean who knows what the state could be under ground. Surely you would want to check the whole rod?

Also you would want to inspect fully every cpc throughout the installation. I mean it could go to anywhere once in the wall couldn’t it?

You asked a question, I answered.

I never suggested anything about digging up the rod to inspect it. You're reacting very quickly to what you think I'm saying, please read more thoroughly.

I also never gave any opinion on the c3. At any point.

All I have stated is my opinion that as the rod is now totally inaccessible it should just be a new rod. It's ok if you disagree but at least remain polite. Especially when I was only answering a question you asked to the best of my knowledge.