L
Lee2610
I have a question about testing on a consumer unit from a distribution board, how would you do the Ze test at the second consumer unit ? I have heard a term Zdb but cant really find information on this.
Ze would be taken as normal, it would be named Zdb though.
The old test result forms used to ask for Ze at origin, the new ones ask for Zs at DB.
Which to my mind is an improvement.
Still put Ze on the first page.
Zdb at the second consumer unit.
I assume you have the Ze reading for the main distribution board?
If you add Ze for the main distribution board to the R1 + R2 for the tails from Main Distribution board to the consumer unit that will give you Zdb.
Resistance aΩ + Resistance bΩ = Resistance cΩ.
No it won't, Zdb will also include the parallel paths to earth created by bonding extraneous parts.
I was asked this precise question by a C&G examiner this week. The examiner said my answer was correct.No it won't, Zdb will also include the parallel paths to earth created by bonding extraneous parts.
I was asked this precise question by a C&G examiner this week. The examiner said my answer was correct.
Measuring EFLI at the secondary consumer unit leaving all parallel paths connected would give a lower resistance than the sum of Ze from the main board and adding the R1+R2 for the tails to the secondary consumer unit. The purpose of Ze and therefore Zdb at the secondary board is to give the worst case scenario should, for some odd reason, all the parallel paths disappear. The Zdb can then be used for objective calculations for the operation of RCDs (for example).
Yes, a lower reading would make downstream circuits more likely to pass, but surely that is not the aim of the exercise?
I asked my assessor about 'calculated' and 'measured' Zs as my reasoning was as above. The calculated method [Ze+(R1+R2)] is likely to be a higher resistance value than the measured value due to the bonding still being connected with a 'measured' value. He stated that a 'measured' figure should be given although did not explain why.
We remove the bonding cables to get an accurate Ze and because we cannot presume the resistance value of the bonding will be a stable figure, however when we measure Zs we leave the bonding in place so we are using part of that 'instabilty' in our 'measured' value of Zs??
On ocassion the MFT will not record a Zs, then I can't see another option to using a calculated figure.
I seen this thread earlier did some research and this seems as close to a diffinitve answers as I've seen.Ze would be taken as normal, it would be named Zdb though.
Here's a question regarding Zdb.
when changing a consumer unit in a property that has sub mains, do you just test up to the sub main and ignore it from there on? I can only assume so, well that's what I do, you can't be responsible for the circuits off the submains.
I seen this thread earlier did some research and this seems as close to a diffinitve answers as I've seen.
Open question: If it's not, why isn't it ?
Here's a question regarding Zdb.
when changing a consumer unit in a property that has sub mains, do you just test up to the sub main and ignore it from there on? I can only assume so, well that's what I do, you can't be responsible for the circuits off the submains.
Zdb is Zs so it is acceptable to measure or calculate. That's what the BYB says isn't it?
Any bonding is at the MET or EMT, not any other boards.
Tin hat on obviously!
We remove the bonding cables to get an accurate Ze and because we cannot presume the resistance value of the bonding will be a stable figure, however when we measure Zs we leave the bonding in place so we are using part of that 'instabilty' in our 'measured' value of Zs??
.
No you test the submain, how would you go about testing up to the submain anyway??
Final circuits fed via that submain you wouldn't necessarily expect to be tested.