Good afternoon. Done an EICR and it was a TT system. Could not find the earth spike anywhere. My earth fault loop impedance was good enough 77.6 ohms. The consumer unit has RCD protection. Would you recommend a C3 for no visibility of earth spike/plate. Thanks
It is certainly a matter for further investigation.
Depending how you measured that 70 odd ohms the installation may be relying solely on something not intended to be an earthing facility such as an external water or gas pipe, that may be interrupted at any time by some unlucky plumber or gas fitter. They could then find themselves painfully or even lethally in series with leakage currents from the house. There has been the odd plumber electrocuted while changing a stopcock.
If however that was a test result with bonding and final circuit CPCs removed, then presumably there is a wire to an electrode somewhere that may be totally buried, and that may be OK.
very hard to say without seeing it.
The 'if in doubt' option is probably to recommend a new electrode in parallel.
Mike
Agreed with Mike. It could be hidden in a flower bed behind a wisteria or whatever.
Not C3 for me - either it exists (no code) or it does not (at least C2) so as Mike says, all depends upon functional testing.
Agreed with Mike. It could be hidden in a flower bed behind a wisteria or whatever.
Not C3 for me - either it exists (no code) or it does not (at least C2) so as Mike says, all depends upon functional testing.
We take a fairly stern approach. Example of recent observation on the issue;
I agree. The condition of the connection cannot be confirmed, risking undetected deterioration that could undermine the earthing system’s safety. (FI/C2)
I recall a TT system installation in a steel-frame building with a 10-ohm earth resistance. There was no access to the earth rod. It was later discovered that the earth rod had been stolen, leaving the conductor buried in the mud
AMK raises a good point ... an earth fault loop impedance measurement, or even an earth electrode resistance measurement, doesn't guarantee an appropriate electrode is there.
However, what if all you can see is the termination (in a pit or otherwise) ? That could also be 300 mm of rod just pushed into the ground!
There are always going to be limitations ... but what is for certain, that if you haven't seen it for yourself, you can't say it's there.
if you haven't seen it for yourself, you can't say it's there
But philosophically, nor have you any evidence that it does not exist.
OK, I will shift my position and agree that a satisfactory resistance of the earthing conductor to the general mass of the earth does not prove that the means of earthing is satisfactory.
What if the earth rod is under the floorboards?
The question comes back to what is included in that 70 ohm reading - if it was the sort of building where foundation steels were the electrode by design, that would be perfectly acceptable, but a wire vanishing under the floor to who knows where could just as easily be a bond to an incoming gas pipe or similar, that should not be relied upon,. There really is no substitute for a knowledge of the original intention..
A short earth rod, that achieves an adequate resistance, even when short, is also OK - because it is intended to be an earth electrode, and it meets the resistance requirements of the earth fault relay or RCD.
There is a third way common in countries that require house electrodes on PME, like Germany, for example, where it is common to see two well-spaced connections made to the same foundation steel or whatever used as electrodes so that a very low resistance measurement (sub ohm), can be made that actually does verify the hidden metal is complete. A separate electrode test, confirms the function of the electrode in terms of a reliable fault path back to the substation electrodes via the terra-firma sort of earth, but that may be near a hundred ohms or so , and may not find a rusty bolt problem.
Wire or ribbon electrodes run around the outside of the building can also be verified as complete in a similar way, so long as both ends are brought to the surface, by a similar ring-round test - which will detect if the middle has been mechanically damaged or rotted out.
Mike.
edited for clarity.
But philosophically, nor have you any evidence that it does not exist.
How can you certify a means of earthing was there when you couldn't ascertain it was? I'm not sure what philosophy is at play here ... if you say you've seen it, then it was, otherwise, well, you're surely only assuming?
OK, I will shift my position and agree that a satisfactory resistance of the earthing conductor to the general mass of the earth does not prove that the means of earthing is satisfactory.
What if the earth rod is under the floorboards?
Hence the requirement for connections to be visible ... but again, it's not me that's signing this "certificate" to say the means of earthing is there ... after all, what you certify you've seen or verified, that's what it is (according to you ...) and what you would have to stand up in court and justify ?
Better to say you can't see it and don't know, than assume it's there?
Better to say you can't see it and don't know, than assume it's there?
Good points, and taking into account Mapj1's post about testing the Earthing correctly, I'm tending toward a C3/ recommendation to improve. How about buried grid earthing systems?
There is no way of checking the connection of the cable / strap clamped to the buried grid, as it is a metre below ground, and I don't think anyone would suggest that is a C2 if the testing shows the connection is still good.
Of course, the typical UK earth spike/rod with clamp on connection is not as good as the bolted on strap on a grid earthing system, but it is not the sort of connection that will come loose if not touched. If ,however, foilage surrounds it, or people can walk across it/wind moves it, then I'd be more inclined to make it a FI, rather than C2. C2 is potentially dangerous, FI , basically, says 'I dont know, so lets look deeper into it'. They both amount to the same thing, a 'failed' EICR, but with a little digging, the connection may be found, and the FI remedied if all is good, whereas the C2 makes it look like there was a fault with the install, where the Inspector did not know, and is guessing.
I'd be more inclined to make it a FI, rather than C2. C2 is potentially dangerous, FI , basically, says 'I dont know, so lets look deeper into it'. They both amount to the same thing, a 'failed
Good point. I note that Best Practice Guide 4 issue 7.2 is recommending that FI codes should be unnecessary in domestic installations and therefore do not cite any examples. But I agree that this issue is a good example for retaining the FI codes.
Better to say you can't see it and don't know, than assume it's there?
There seems to be something of a consensus that FI is appropriate. Is that not passing the buck?
Why not a limitation? e.g., "The earth rod was not inspected, but the impedance to earth was within satisfactory limits."
Model EICR form, page 519 of the Big Brown Book: Section D deals with concealed cables, etc.
Over the page: "FI - Further investigation required without delay." Carpets and suspended wooden floors with boards could be disturbed, but not the tiled kitchen floor on concrete slabs on concrete beams.
So, if you cannot investigate, and your private landlord wants a tick in the box, what do you do? Can the "electrical safety standards" be met if the earth rod is concealed?
Now Graham is going to remind us that only a judge can answer that question.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
