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

S.W.A. Armour Earthing.

Which regulations(s) require the steel wire armouring of a S.W.A. cable to be earthed if it is NOT used as a circuit protective conductor?


Case 1. Cable buried underground.


Case 2. Cable NOT buried underground.


Z.
Parents
  • AJJewsbury:


    We are a bit double standarded (is that a word?) though - on one hand we claim the sheath isn't an adequate insulator, but then when we create a TT island we typically rely on the sheath (and boot over the gland) to prevent contact between two different earthing systems (which under some conditions can differ by full mains voltage).


    I don't agree that a "boot" over the gland does the job in the case that the armour is not earthed as an exposed-conductive-part or protective conductor. Suitable insulation such as cold shrink sleeving (that can only be removed by destruction - Regulation 416.1), is far more appropriate, and indeed the actual requirement of BS 7671.


    Think about the fact that the person you are trying to protect isn't just someone who is neither skilled nor instructed, but perhaps the "next spark in the queue" ... and the fact that the EAWR and CDM Regs apply in almost all circumstances to the work being undertaken by that person, or the designer or both ... and if you decided to take that approach, you're the designer.


Reply
  • AJJewsbury:


    We are a bit double standarded (is that a word?) though - on one hand we claim the sheath isn't an adequate insulator, but then when we create a TT island we typically rely on the sheath (and boot over the gland) to prevent contact between two different earthing systems (which under some conditions can differ by full mains voltage).


    I don't agree that a "boot" over the gland does the job in the case that the armour is not earthed as an exposed-conductive-part or protective conductor. Suitable insulation such as cold shrink sleeving (that can only be removed by destruction - Regulation 416.1), is far more appropriate, and indeed the actual requirement of BS 7671.


    Think about the fact that the person you are trying to protect isn't just someone who is neither skilled nor instructed, but perhaps the "next spark in the queue" ... and the fact that the EAWR and CDM Regs apply in almost all circumstances to the work being undertaken by that person, or the designer or both ... and if you decided to take that approach, you're the designer.


Children
No Data