EICR Coding - Armour not glanded

[Karin]

I know it's a bit unorthodox, but think about it for a moment, what's wrong with it?

i'd maybe add lack of strain relief on the termination too.
do you mean pre-amendment 3? what changed then?
EDIT: ah i see westward's post we're talking bout the rcd protection

 

[westward10]

I checked both Niglon and SWA Online and can't find manufacturers instructions. I chose these as this is what is in my tool box. Also no instructions come with these. The only thing on bag is size chart.
I then done a google search and found these guys, their instructions don't mention an enclosure, it just shows how to terminate SWA into their gland.
http://www.cmp-products.com/Installation Instructions/CMP BW.pdf
So I don't see any issue?

So assuming you have opted for swa to avoid additional rcd protection and seeing as you have not maintained this earthed containment to the enclosure of the consumer unit there is a part of this cable contained in the wall cavity without additional rcd protection.

 

[davesparks]

I agree with FI, I wired a HMO with SWA from Switch Fuse (Metal Wylex 110M) properly glanded in main intake cupboard to CU in flat. Terminating SWA on CU would be ugly with all other wires entering from rear. I spent weeks deliberating solution.
Old spark suggested terminating behind CU with floating gland and bringing flying earth lead into CU.
I didn't like the idea to begin with, but could not see anything technically wrong.
At the Intake cupboard it is clearly visible, the EIC details it's SWA.
Maybe you have a similar scenario?

Floating glands are a bodge, why not just fit the gland into the flush box behind the CU?

 

[davesparks]

Why not?

I thought about it for ages but could not think of a better way to get SWA through back of a surface mount CU. I'm always interested to hear alternative ideas as I'm sure I'll get this scenario again. The only way I've found to get around this was flush mount CU with gland, but if this is not possible I really don't know a better way ?

If it's a solid wall terminate he SWA into the flush box you fix behind the CU or a galvanised terminal box behind the CU.

For a stud wall you can again use a terminal box or fit the gland to a galvanised elbow which then fits to the back of the CU with a bush.

 

[davesparks]

I know it's a bit unorthodox, but think about it for a moment, what's wrong with it?

It doesn't my comply with 134.1.1 or 134.1.4, it is not good workmanship nor is it of proper construction.

 

[Michaelwgroves]

So assuming you have opted for swa to avoid additional rcd protection and seeing as you have not maintained this earthed containment to the enclosure of the consumer unit there is a part of this cable contained in the wall cavity without additional rcd protection.

Fair point, although I terminated behind CU.

 

[Michaelwgroves]

Floating glands are a bodge, why not just fit the gland into the flush box behind the CU?

Agree with flush CU, but this is for surface mount.

 

[Michaelwgroves]

If it's a solid wall terminate he SWA into the flush box you fix behind the CU or a galvanised terminal box behind the CU.

For a stud wall you can again use a terminal box or fit the gland to a galvanised elbow which then fits to the back of the CU with a bush.

With solid walls you're gonna have to use trunking so no reason not to gland to CU.

For stud I don't see any value in terminal box, but anyway we can't use either today as both not MF, unless you have access panel.
However, I do like the idea of elbow gland, but never seen these, this is the best solution i've seen, do they exist?

 

[Rpa07]

I can imagine he means a 90 degree conduit elbow which you could gland to then use a bush on the CU end to carry the earthing on.
Neat idea that I wouldn't have thought of and means that you don't have the SwA radius to think about.

 

[Michaelwgroves]

It doesn't my comply with 134.1.1 or 134.1.4, it is not good workmanship nor is it of proper construction.

I typically use Niglon and SWA, neither of which I can find installation instructions. One manufacturer I did find shows a floating gland in their instructions. Therefore I do not see why it does not comply with above.
Focus on the box, what value does it give, assume the gland is well terminated in any case ?

This is a bit academic as I would not use this method today, but it's a good debate. I would like to conclude if what I did previously was not right. But at this point not seeing anything to the contrary.

 

[Michaelwgroves]

I can imagine he means a 90 degree conduit elbow which you could gland to then use a bush on the CU end to carry the earthing on.
Neat idea that I wouldn't have thought of and means that you don't have the SwA radius to think about.

In that case love it, I would never had thought of this.

 

[Midwest]

Interesting discussion. I guess another reason not have a 'floating gland' or gland not terminated into an enclosure, is the inner cores of a swa are single insulated and not sheathed, and thus not afforded that extra protection, even is behind the back of a CU.

I've come across swa terminated without a gland before now. Guess some sparks see no harm in it, but never seen a manufacturer suggesting this as a method of termination, god knows what damage all those spikey steel wire could do.

I would terminate the swa into the top of the CU, you could always conceal it in some white plastic trunking.

You can tell it's Sunday afternoon, as I ventured into a grown ups thread. Is it sufficiently late enough, to open a can of beer

 

[davesparks]

Agree with flush CU, but this is for surface mount.

Yes I know, that she why I said gland it into the flush box which you fit behind the CU and not into the CU.

Is it no longer normal practice to have a flush knockout box or adaptable box behind a CU to Marshall the cables and give the plasterers half a chance of getting the wall flat?

 

[davesparks]

With solid walls you're gonna have to use trunking so no reason not to gland to CU.

For stud I don't see any value in terminal box, but anyway we can't use either today as both not MF, unless you have access panel.
However, I do like the idea of elbow gland, but never seen these, this is the best solution i've seen, do they exist?

You can chase SWA in to a solid wall.

The terminal box does not need to be MF, it's just a means of fitting the gland and securing it to the CU, there won't be any connections in there. You fit the gland to the terminal box, drill out the back of the CU to fix the terminal box to it via the two 4mm tapped lugs and another hole with a grommet to bring the conductors through. You can fit a crimped lug to one of the 4mm screws to get your earth connection to the armour.

Not an elbow gland, a gland fitted to a solid or inspection conduit elbow.

 

[davesparks]

I typically use Niglon and SWA, neither of which I can find installation instructions. One manufacturer I did find shows a floating gland in their instructions. Therefore I do not see why it does not comply with above.
Focus on the box, what value does it give, assume the gland is well terminated in any case ?

This is a bit academic as I would not use this method today, but it's a good debate. I would like to conclude if what I did previously was not right. But at this point not seeing anything to the contrary.

Unless I've got the numbers wrong then those regulations make no mention of manufacturers instructions. They concern good workmanship and proper construction.
The manufacturers instructions for an SWA gland will only be concerned with the fitting of the gland to the cable, they have nothing to do with what you choose to do with the gland once you've fitted it to the cable.