SWA glanded in a plastic stuffing gland

Hi all, 

I’ve been trying to settle a difference of opinion and looking for advice. 
we have several supplies fed in SWA, they have all been glanded off with a CW gland into the DB. At the load end, the armouring has been taped up and a plastic stuffing gland has been used where it enters  metal EV Chargers, its been done deliberately to isolate the earth to the chargers. 
My colleague and I think this is poor practice and think an isolating gland should have been fitted or the armoured terminated into a plastic enclosure prior to entering the charger. the below regulations are what we believe are contravened. 

Regulation 134.1.1Good workmanship by competent persons or persons under their supervision and proper materials shall be used in the erection of the electrical installation.

regulation 526.8 Cores of sheathed cables from which the sheath has been removed and non-sheathed cables at the
termination of conduit, ducting or trunking shall be enclosed as required by Regulation 526.5.

Our colleagues think we are incorrect, yet have conceded that the use of a stuffing gland isn’t to manufacturers instructions and agree that the stuffing gland isn’t supporting the cable like a SWA glad would by clamping the armour.

what is everyone’s view on here? 

  • Hi AJ, 

    I’d be interested to see the official guidance that you mentioned.  
    my argument is similar to what you’ve posted, I think making it off into a insulated box would have been the best course of action, however I think in this case they didn’t like the aesthetic  of a box under the charger. 
    thr cables are run in ducting then onto tray, so are fixed to the tray. It most probably will never be an issue, but pulling a cable out of a stuffing gland is much easier than a made off SWA. 
    you can get these glands, problem is the price tag and availability.

  • Hi AMK, one of the cores is being used from a O-Pen device, the armouring is being isolated at the point of the charger so that O-pen Earth is kept seperate from the earth of the electrical installation.

    My issue is the use of the stuffing gland and that SWA is made off correctly.

  • Stuffing glands chosen to grip the SWA adequately, will provide an IP seal where an SWA enters a box, with the outer sheath unbroken.

    Done properly, that is perfectly fine, if that is what you wish to achieve.

    Is the tape providing site applied insulation to armour on the outside of the box that would be exposed to touch it it were removed, or is it inside an enclosure  that prevents touch ?

    The former I'd worry about, the latter less so.  PVC insulation tape is pretty poor as insulation despite the title, and there are better products, as Graham notes, the cold shrink rubber boots are very good, as are the glue lined heat shrinks. Self amalgamiting tape when applied as per the makers instructions cannot be removed by unpicking and as such is as permanent without the use of tools.

    The norm for testing Zs is to comb a few strands into some sleeving, and put to a terminal, much as one might terminate split concentric, and then to over sleeve the whole cable in a way that ties in any ends that are cut short. The hazard  of exposure to an 'out of area' cpc potential is comparable to that from an exposed neutral bus bar and there are plenty of those accessible once CU covers are removed and very few dead bodies, it needs to be clear what it is, and that only those skilled in the art will have the lid off.

    It may not be beautiful, but  it's not bad.

    Mike.

  • My colleague and I think this is poor practice and think an isolating gland should have been fitted or the armoured terminated into a plastic enclosure prior to entering the charger. the below regulations are what we believe are contravened. 

    It's not unusual to see armoured cables enter through stuffing glands into an internal enclosure or similar, but you need to check the stuffing glands are OK for this.

    However 'taping up' is not really insulation, and (with reference to Reg 411.3.1.1, 'Simultaneously accessible exposed-conductive-parts shall be connected to the same earthing system individually, in groups or collectively') what is there to protect electricians carrying out repair/testing from 'simultaneous contact' risk between the two earthing systems?

    Cold shrink sleeving is best for this. If the armour (as cpc) is required to be accessible for testing, then something more than 'tape that can be removed' such as insulate the armour with cold-shrink sleeving and if something available for testing is needed, provision of an insulated tail to a suitable 4 mm shrouded test terminal (all insulated), and suitable labelling, would be a better approach ...

    So, I would agree, this is a CDM risk that should have been evaluated and something more suitable put in place. This applies even for non-notifiable installations, and non-workplaces, as under CDM designers have a duty to ensure the installation is safe to maintain.

  • I don't quite follow the 526.8 argument - aren't all the cores enclosed by the EV charger enclosure? 134.1.1 is, as ever, debatable and probably needs a reference to some recognised guidance to make it stick.

    I think the stuffing gland approach was suggested by some official guidance some time back for isolating TN c.p.c.s. Personally I don't particularly like the approach as it doesn't make it simple to test the continuity/Zs at the load end of the armour - which you really should do if the armour is being relied upon for ADS for the cable itself (e.g. if the cable is buried or run through an environment where damage is a risk - and if it's not why bother with SWA?). The cable itself should be supported conventionally (e.g. by cleats/P-clips) as required and not rely on the termination of the armour for support. The stuffing gland approach does have the advantage of enuring there are no exposed-conductive-parts of the supply TN system (e.g. the brass gland) within reach of the EV's earthing system.

    My preference would be for a brass gland into a plastic enclosure (perhaps the charge point itself, if the enclosure is insulating), covered with a PVC boot to prevent the gland being touched, with the secured in some way if needs be to make sure it can't slip or be accidentally moved to expose the gland. I wouldn't say that was the only option though.

    Some might suggest that the boot doesn't have any guaranteed insulting qualities and so if a brass gland is used it should itself be enclosed inside an insulating enclosure to make sure it's not exposed within reach of the EV's earthing system.

    Some propitiatory SWA glands have and insulting outer shell, which might be worth consideration for such cases. I have also seen pictures of metal SWA (ZEN?) glands with in-built isolation between armour and enclosure (but I can't say I've ever seen them offered for sale in wholesalers...). and the issue of metal parts of the two systems remaining within reach of each other might still persist even then.

       - Andy.

  • Hi Davey. Is  the SWA cable a three-core type? Should the earth be isolated from the chargers, or is it possible that Black core is being used as the circuit protective conductor and the armouring is being earthed at the distribution board end, considering it is classified as an exposed conductive part? Or is it because you are converting to a TT earthing system at the charger? 
    - Andrew