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

Why STEEL in SWA?

Admittedly I don't make off a lot of SWA, but do occasionally and can usually do a decent job in a reasonable time but the other day I had to terminate a couple of SWAs into an awkward position (back of  cupboard, restricted space, having to work left handed, and not quite enough space to get a spanner in and so on) and got to thinking there must be a better way…

Most of the difficulty was around glanding off the actual steel armour - trying to get everything aligned and tightened in a confined space seemed more like the less desirable aspects of being a plumber rather than an electrician. Split-con would have appealed - as then a simple stuffing gland could have been used and the copper outers just pig-tailed into the terminals, but as the cables go underground split-con isn't permitted any more. Which got me thinking - why is the armour in SWA steel? (apart from the name of course) - had it been copper it could be terminated like split-con. The physical robustness of steel seems rather wasted since if the cable is penetrated by something the steel strands are easily displaced (as in the garden fork experiment) - so really it is ADS that the armour gives us in way of safety rather than an impenetrable mechanical barrier - and copper if anything would be better than steel at enabling ADS. The DNOs use concentric cables with just copper “armour”, if as a PEN rather than just PE, but the principle is the same.

So I guess I'm coming around to copper concentric cables, but with an extra core for a separate N - it could still be glanded off using brass glands if you really wanted to, but you'd have the option of just pig-tailing the c.p.c. where that was more appropriate.

That might feel like it's going to be more expensive (copper instead of steel), but as most people use and extra core in SWA for c.p.c. in parallel with the armour, it's really just moving that copper to the armour instead - so really it's a saving of the steel with no extra copper required. So perhaps slightly cheaper and slightly smaller o.d. cables.

Any other takers for “CWA" cables?

     - Andy.

Parents
  • Alternatively, you can put the gland on the cable before you thread it into the difficult access position

    Undoubtedly better planning would have helped (as ever) but it was one of those situations where the original plans changed over the year. In the final case the SWA had to terminate into  wiska box with threaded entries, so glanding to the cable first wouldn't have worked ?

    i am thinking if you replace the steel with copper having the same CCC then the resultant cable would be similar to braided sheath cable. On the other hand if you replace the steel with copper having the same tensile strength (or rather yield strength) the copper content would mostly be in the sheath and would be horrendously expensive given the price of copper at the moment

    I was thinking of same size c.p.c/armour as the cores (or as per table 54.7 for larger sizes) - so probably a bit more substantial than “braid” - more like the outer of ordinary concentric cables (e.g.  

    ) but 2-core rather than single core (or 4 rather than 3 core).

    I just wondering why we continue to use steel when others (e.g. DNOs) seem to have moved away from that and are having an easier life as a result.

        - Andy.

Reply
  • Alternatively, you can put the gland on the cable before you thread it into the difficult access position

    Undoubtedly better planning would have helped (as ever) but it was one of those situations where the original plans changed over the year. In the final case the SWA had to terminate into  wiska box with threaded entries, so glanding to the cable first wouldn't have worked ?

    i am thinking if you replace the steel with copper having the same CCC then the resultant cable would be similar to braided sheath cable. On the other hand if you replace the steel with copper having the same tensile strength (or rather yield strength) the copper content would mostly be in the sheath and would be horrendously expensive given the price of copper at the moment

    I was thinking of same size c.p.c/armour as the cores (or as per table 54.7 for larger sizes) - so probably a bit more substantial than “braid” - more like the outer of ordinary concentric cables (e.g.  

    ) but 2-core rather than single core (or 4 rather than 3 core).

    I just wondering why we continue to use steel when others (e.g. DNOs) seem to have moved away from that and are having an easier life as a result.

        - Andy.

Children
No Data