Earth terminated outside.

[Buzz1980]

Hi All

Seen this on a few jobs now where they have on the Downlight fittings where the CPC is terminated outside the enclosure of the Downlight due to not having a earth connection inside. Does anyone know the reg that states that this is not permitted and earth connections should be inside enclosure. As on a EICR I would usually put down C3 but if you look at the Downlight connection side, the earth cable usually comes out the terminal enclosure single insulated and then connected on the side of the Downlight. Will look forward to responses cheers

 

[loz2754]

The light pictured above is a Class I fitting and requires an earth connection.
Regarding the need to enclose CPC/earth terminations, think about an earthing block at the origin...

 

[Buzz1980]

The photo was an example of where the earth of the fitting is connected to side of fitting and single insulated cable only ?

 

[ipf]

Yeah that’s correct but my thinking would be the same for T&E earth connection outside of enclosure wouldn’t need a code against it as the reg states live conductors only so earth connections can be outside enclosure and no enclosure required is that correct ?

A bit like a joint box with not enough terminals....so the earths are connected externally? Not ideal, but reg wise I'm not sure.

 

[brianmoooore]

Right, I'm totally confused! Pics show a Class 1 fitting with a pigtail from the connection box to the metal of the can. Presumably there's a 3 pole terminal block inside the connector enclosure to connect L, N and earth from the T&E.
What's the problem?

 

[loz2754]

Would have been better if you'd shown a pic of the actual situation you're concerned about, and not a generic photo perhaps? Then we'd be able to give a more relevant opinion.

 

[Buzz1980]

Ok sorry should have sent over correct photo. The question I am asking what reg is the installation going against when the earth connection is outside of the downlight connector block ? The downlight fitting are LAP double insulated and don’t have a earth connection so the L&N are connected into the fitting and the CPC is then folded back outside and installed into a wago to link the CPCs together. Now what reg is this against or is the reg only for only the live conductors and will be no code with the downlight installed this way ?

 

[westward10]

526.8 refers to the cores of sheathed cables being enclosed as required by 526.5, it makes no mention for the purpose of the conductor and the reference to 526.5 is the methods contained in that Regulation for the enclosure not whether it is a live conductor or not.
See 543.1.1 whereby the cpc is no longer an integral part of the cable as the sheath has been removed.
The cpc should be enclosed or mechanically protected.

 

[Lucien Nunes]

Aha, now I understand. The problem is not that the CPC connection to the fitting is exposed.... there isn't one because it's class II. The problem is the loop-through of the CPC from one T+E to the next via a Wago, which is exposed. The question is therefore partly whether the CPC can be unenclosed (as addressed by @westward10 above) and also whether a Wago terminal needs mechanical protection and enclosure to prevent the connection being damaged e.g. by movement of the cable. I think it would be up to Wago's instructions on the latter point but it's pretty obvious.

On a related note, is there not a reg that states any CPC that is not part of a sheathed cable or within containment must be a certain minimum CSA (2.5 or 4mm²?). I.e. you can run 10mm² 6491x through the ceiling without any containment but not 1.0?

 

[westward10]

On a related note, is there not a reg that states any CPC that is not part of a sheathed cable or within containment must be a certain minimum CSA (2.5 or 4mm²?). I.e. you can run 10mm² 6491x through the ceiling without any containment but not 1.0?

That is the gist of 543.1.1.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

526.8 refers to the cores of sheathed cables being enclosed as required by 526.5, it makes no mention for the purpose of the conductor and the reference to 526.5 is the methods contained in that Regulation for the enclosure not whether it is a live conductor or not.

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of these regulations.

526.5 begins "Every termination and joint in a live conductor or a PEN conductor shall be made within one of the following or a combination thereof...". This regulation has no requirements for CPCs, therefore neither does 526.8 IMO

 

[westward10]

I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation of these regulations.

526.5 begins "Every termination and joint in a live conductor or a PEN conductor shall be made within one of the following or a combination thereof...". This regulation has no requirements for CPCs, therefore neither does 526.8 IMO

526.8 refers to cores of sheathed cables this covers all cores. It's reference to 526.5 is to the enclosure methods.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

526.8 refers to cores of sheathed cables this covers all cores. It's reference to 526.5 is to the enclosure methods.

While I can see how you may have come to this conclusion (the regulation 526.8 could do with being clearer), I don't believe it to be correct. I believe 526.8 references 526.5 in full, and does not expect us to overlook the first sentence of 526.5.

 

[123]

I assume its something like this that's being referred to. I come across them a lot still and the cpc issue is the least of the problems, lucky if you see the cap screwed down, cable grip in place but will see plenty of brown and blue exposed. Dreadful items.

 

[timhoward]

the regulation 526.8 could do with being clearer

That wording has in fact been practically identical since at least 16th edition (earliest I have to hand) and I've never considered it at anything other than face value before tonight:

I can't see that it actually makes sense without applying the 1st sentence too of the 1st reg too.

Imagine a non-sheathed 10mm (single insulated) CPC running in conduit, then glanded from a BESA box, and off to bond a water pipe. According to the 2nd reg alone that would need to be enclosed, right?
I believe it to be the first sentence of the 1st reg that says "no, no need" as it's not a live conductor or a pen conductor.

I've never thought of it any other way, and am happy to be corrected.

 

[westward10]

However we read those two 543.1.1 does not permit the 1.0 cpc to be unenclosed.