The IET is carrying out some important updates between 17-30 April and all of our websites will be view only. For more information, read this Announcement

This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

SWA Cable Above ground and earthing the armour

When using SWA cable underground I always earth the armour, regardless of whether the armour is used as the cpc or not. The armour does provide some mechanical protection and it is important that the armour is earthed so that if the cable were penetrated (e.g. by a garden fork), the supply would automatically be disconnected by the protective device under this fault condition.
I have a situation on an existing domestic installation where I will be changing the consumer unit.  The 3-core SWA cable to the hot-tub rotary isolator is above ground and clipped to an outside wall.
The cable has not been terminated with brass glands, and at the ends the armour have been taped up, so no exposed conductive parts. The armour is not being used as the cpc.
At the rotary isolator for the hot-tub, stuffing glands have been used. The cable feeding the hot-tub does rest on the ground for about 1m before going into the hot-tub enclosure.
The earthing arrangement is TNCS, however at the hot-tub rotary isolator, the TNCS earth is not exported and there is an earth electrode for  the hot-tub’s cpc
Would you expect the armour to be earthed? Is it acceptable to terminate SWA without brass glands?
Parents

  • mapj1:

    unusual certainly, and it is only OK to switch earth when mechanically ganged with the current carrying cores, as it is in this case. 

    I agree, it is far from  standard, and rings alarm bells as to if there is something really serious wrong elsewhere.




    I doubt whoever wired it would be trying to claim compliance with 543.3.3.101 No switching device shall be inserted in a protective conductor, except: (ii) a multipole, linked switch in which the protective conductor circuit is not interrupted before the live conductors and is re-established not later than when the live conductors are reconnected.

     In my mind I think it’s a case of they had cables with three conductors and there’s three terminals on each side of the switch so used those rather than the earth terminal provided and that protective conductor is not switched through a switch designed to allow it to make first and break last.


    Andy 

Reply

  • mapj1:

    unusual certainly, and it is only OK to switch earth when mechanically ganged with the current carrying cores, as it is in this case. 

    I agree, it is far from  standard, and rings alarm bells as to if there is something really serious wrong elsewhere.




    I doubt whoever wired it would be trying to claim compliance with 543.3.3.101 No switching device shall be inserted in a protective conductor, except: (ii) a multipole, linked switch in which the protective conductor circuit is not interrupted before the live conductors and is re-established not later than when the live conductors are reconnected.

     In my mind I think it’s a case of they had cables with three conductors and there’s three terminals on each side of the switch so used those rather than the earth terminal provided and that protective conductor is not switched through a switch designed to allow it to make first and break last.


    Andy 

Children
No Data