Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 12 replies
  • Subscribers 34 subscribers
  • Views 1933 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Wiring testing

garyolly

I work on bespoke training equipment for the defence industry. Due to a recent contract change, we are once again going through a Demarcation phase. One party has accepted testing responsibilities up to and including the circuit breaker panels that supply my equipment. Another party is now suggesting that all cabling going forward to motors, winches, control circuits etc, need to be tested. I regularly test motor windings and all junction boxes at the equipment but have never felt the need to test the cabling running from the breaker panel to the junction box. I have always assumed (i know, never assume) that should a fault arise with the cables, I would diagnose, fix and record. Should I be testing the control cables or not? Earth testing is completed annually, P.A.T testing for portables is completed annually.  Thanks   

  • 0

    How practical is it to test these cables?

     - if it involves a lot of dismantling it may be more harm than good to keep doing so. Can the essential tests (insulation power lines to ground and earth continuity) be done with the kit at the ends still connected.

    If not is there a proxy, such as visually checking and perhaps measuring earth leakage that would be OK instead. 

    Are the cables especially vulnerable ?

    In a way he who pays the piper chooses the tune, so what is actually required contractually ?

    Mike.

  • 0

    Hi Mike, It's not practical at all. There are hundreds of cables and yes some of the equipment would need to be disconnected. There are also zom units and software control units along the way. Thanks for your answer.

  • 0

    garyolly: 
     

    Hi Mike, It's not practical at all. There are hundreds of cables and yes some of the equipment would need to be disconnected. There are also zom units and software control units along the way. Thanks for your answer.

    I'm not sure that “it was too hard to test, so we didn't” would be much of a defence if the Health and Safety Executive started sniffing around after an accident.

  • 0

    IMO it would make sense to inspect and test in small groups of circuits over a period of time rather than attempting the lot at once, depending, of course, on the human resources available.

    Legh

  • 0

    I'm not sure that “it was too hard to test, so we didn't” would be much of a defence if the Health and Safety Executive started sniffing around after an accident.

    Agree but “We tested it last year and did not realize that it got damaged soon after” is almost equally unimpressive.

    It may be that 

     “ we have never had an accident because we perform regular visible inspections, and the earthing and containment is also checked and is arranged such that a dangerous condition cannot arise and not be noticed almost immediately ” may be a reasonable alternative to a full dismantle test. (how do the DNOs check their cables for example)

    You do not need to check all  the individual wires, just that the electrons are not escaping,  and be sure that if they do make a run for it one day , that no-one will be hurt. ?

    Mike.

     

  • 0

    Is this for a new install or for a periodic inspection?

       - Andy.

  • 0

    Clearly, it is an “appliance”, not the distribution system. BS7671 is reduced to a simple PAT (although too large to move!). This “problem” is entirely caused by a lack of H&S knowledge. The concept that “testing” everything at some interval makes anything safer is fatally flawed. As Mike says is likely to do more harm than good. Inspecting some things can help, but “testing” is unlikely to make much difference. The first stage is to decide exactly what risk you are intending to prevent by this “testing”. 

  • 0

    “ You do not need to check all  the individual wires, just that the electrons are not escaping,  and be sure that if they do make a run for it one day , that no-one will be hurt. ” 

    Brill?

  • 0

    Clearly, it is an “appliance”,

    Humm, it sounded to me that the final circuit between the DB and the supply terminals of the “appliance” were included in the question.

       - Andy.

  • 0

    Normal EICR?

Community Rules & Guidelines