Can we use the armour of an SWA as the CPC???

[Guest123]

Well here is the table to tell you.

 

[Amp David]

Why is it that recently people seem to find using the SWA armour as bad practice or unacceptable. Seems to be serveral posts each week asking if its ok to do.

 

[ron55]

Lenny that is brilliant. I've been looking for something like this for ages, where did you get it.

In reply to Amp David, I think people who don't really know how to make glans off are the ones against it. Yes it's good practice to run a seperate earth but it's not always practical.

cheers, Ron

 

[johnboy6083]

Why is it that recently people seem to find using the SWA armour as bad practice or unacceptable. Seems to be serveral posts each week asking if its ok to do.

If running a cable outside, then IMO it is bad practice to use steel armouring as CPC. I have seen numerous times what happens to the armour when the sheath of the cable is damaged, and water starts to ingress. The amouring rots away.
However if you believe that there is no chance of the cable being damaged, or of water ingressing then go for it.

 

[Risteard]

I think it's poor practice not to use the armour as the cpc when it is adequate to be used as such.

 

[Amp David]

If running a cable outside, then IMO it is bad practice to use steel armouring as CPC. I have seen numerous times what happens to the armour when the sheath of the cable is damaged, and water starts to ingress. The amouring rots away.
However if you believe that there is no chance of the cable being damaged, or of water ingressing then go for it.

This is a very fair point and I would have to agree with you johnboy

 

[Guest123]

Lenny that is brilliant. I've been looking for something like this for ages, where did you get it.

*Here.*

Click on Technical Info, and then Table 5 - Armour Sizes. Save a copy of the PDF....happy days.

You'll also find the tables in GN1.

 

[Hawk81]

only on Thursday I got a call to a fault on a concrete mixing plant. turns out the fault was on a motor on an external belt which brings the sand to the mixer. when I went to the motor a discovered that the only earth to the motor was the steel armour. this had rusted away comletely. therefore the motor had no earth. then I felt I better check the rest of the motors. found another the same and one more on its way out. its reasons like this why I don't like using the armour.

 

[Guest123]

Look chaps, the table I've posted merely confirms wether or not the armour of a particular SWA is large enough to be used as the CPC if you wish.

External influences dont come into the production of that table, nor do our personal preferences as they are another factor apart.

 

[RETIREDSPARKY]

Check out www.earthingnuts.co.uk

 

[Guest123]

Check out www.earthingnuts.co.uk

Thats where the link in post #7 goes.

 

[Farverfred]

If there is no danger of damage to the S.W.A then I think that it is fine to use it as a c.p.c.
Be careful though, I seem to recall that the total csa of the individual steel wires on some sizes of S.W.A , multiplied by the resistivity of steel etc. is not adequate to be the sole means of earthing. I think that all the sizes up to, but not including 120mm2 are fine. The problems start with the larger cables.
I have never asked, but maybe if you were interested ,the manufactures might give the required details. Cheers.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Lenny already posted the link: http://www.earthingnuts.co.uk/pdf/pvc_xlpe.pdf

 

[blackiel]

Lenny that is brilliant. I've been looking for something like this for ages, where did you get it.

In reply to Amp David, I think people who don't really know how to make glans off are the ones against it. Yes it's good practice to run a seperate earth but it's not always practical.

cheers, Ron

But surely,if you can run the armoured,you can run a separate earth alongside it,then use both,double back up...???

Sorry Ron..Werent meant to quote you...

 

[blackiel]

I think it's poor practice not to use the armour as the cpc when it is adequate to be used as such.

just use both,Armour and separate CPC,double back up....

 

[Tester Steve]

Just to add to the debate!

Steve.

 

[malcolmsanford]

To me providing you calculate using the adiabatic equation as in reg 543.1.3 then using the armour is an acceptable CPC and it even gives it in the reg 543.2.2 (v).

This seems to be a modern development same as not using conduit or trunking as a CPC, it is regarded as safer to run a seperate CPC. I have to admit that in most cases now I do in fact run a seperate CPC, I think most design engineers, unless there is a costing reason, design containemnt systems and SWA with the seperate CPC.

I think even most schemes advise that a seperate CPC is used. It is going with the flow I suppose, and certainly the sparks who trained me would be spinning in their graves to hear that seperate CPC's are run, but sometimes I think you have to go with that flow, rather than fight against it.

 

[davelerave]

i've been trying to clear this up(for myself)

there is no reason not to parallel the armour and separate cpc is there?-for SP and 3P SWA on PME

thanks

 

[IQ Electrical]

i've been trying to clear this up(for myself)

there is no reason not to parallel the armour and separate cpc is there?-for SP and 3P SWA on PME

thanks

The separate cpc must be sized as if it alone were to take the earth fault current, it is not permissible to add the CSA's of the two conductors together

 

[davelerave]

The separate cpc must be sized as if it alone were to take the earth fault current, it is not permissible to add the CSA's of the two conductors together

yes-i know,but otherwise there is no reason why they can't be paralleled is there? on pme

 

[IQ Electrical]

yes-i know,but otherwise there is no reason why they can't be paralleled is there? on pme

No reason.

 

[Guest123]

If you are intending to export then no.

 

[davelerave]

If you are intending to export then no.

explain that thanks

 

[Guest123]

If you are intending to export the PME earthing system out to an outbuilding for instance, then no, using both is not an issue.

 

[Steve Richards]

If you are exporting PME earthing out to an outbuilding that HAS extraneous metalwork (=<22000ohms between metalwork and main earth terminal) and you are intending to use the armouring only as an earth conductor then for a:
TNCS system you will need 8 x the required equivalent in copper e.g 10.00 copper required = 80.00mm armouring.
TNS system you will need 4 x the required equivalent in copper.

 

[davelerave]

If you are exporting PME earthing out to an outbuilding that HAS extraneous metalwork (=<22000ohms between metalwork and main earth terminal) and you are intending to use the armouring only as an earth conductor then for a:
TNCS system you will need 8 x the required equivalent in copper e.g 10.00 copper required = 80.00mm armouring.
TNS system you will need 4 x the required equivalent in copper.

thanks

it's been all separate cpc's here for years anyhow

 

[Marty48]

I always thought that the armouring was sufficient to be used as cpc. The issue with the steel rusting on some external cables would suggest incorrect glands used or improperly applied.

 

[sparx24]

The ECA commisioned a study by ERA on this and the answer was you should always use the armour as CPC unless on the very odd occasion the EFLI might be exceeded or there is concern over loss of connection of SWA due to poor maintenance.
If a wired CPC is to be used it should be an additional core within the cable NOT an external run single core.
One reason being under earth fault conditions an external CPC may upset the balance impedance of the swa and can in fact INCREASE the effective impedance of the cable.
If after installation it is found to require external CPC it should be a minimum of 25% csa of phase conductor.
"ECA guide to the wiring regs."

 

[IQ Electrical]

If after installation it is found to require external CPC it should be a minimum of 25% csa of phase conductor.
"ECA guide to the wiring regs."

Which is a contradiction of IEE Guidance Note 8 which states that 'the additional core or separate cpc is sized as if it alone were to take the fault current'

 

[Dave_]

Hello everyone just been reading this thread and i find it very interesting......

I must admit i´m a little surprised that only one person has mentioned using the adiabitc equation for calculating the size of a cpc... It doesnt take long and i have found i have never needed to run a seperate cpc when making calculations for distribution cables. As a general rule though, if the cable is to be run outside or where other external influences are present then i always run a copper earth (not a seperate single core cable, an extra internal core) due to corrosion.

I undertook the 2391-20 design course where a lot of cable calculations were made and i always used the adiabatic, as by using the table at the start of this thread you will generally find that you run in an earth that frankly is oversized. If you want to price a job competitively (im talking larger commercial, industrial jobs) then using the adiabatic is alot more accurate, if were talking about large SWA cables from say 95mm upwards you will find a seperate earth costs a fair bit... 50mm BS6491x say 150m.... NOT CHEAP! a simple calc.. oh its not required so why bother....?

If anyone wants a bit more clarity on this like exactly how the calculation is made (can show examples) then let me know as i would be more than happy to help....!

cheers Dave

 

[Amp David]

Show me the calcs Dave!

Seriously though lately i've been trying to gen up on using the adiabatic more lately as like you say the cost can differ massively on some jobs

Cheers

 

[Guest123]

Hello everyone just been reading this thread and i find it very interesting......

I must admit i´m a little surprised that only one person has mentioned using the adiabitc equation for calculating the size of a cpc... It doesnt take long and i have found i have never needed to run a seperate cpc when making calculations for distribution cables. As a general rule though, if the cable is to be run outside or where other external influences are present then i always run a copper earth (not a seperate single core cable, an extra internal core) due to corrosion.

I undertook the 2391-20 design course where a lot of cable calculations were made and i always used the adiabatic, as by using the table at the start of this thread you will generally find that you run in an earth that frankly is oversized. If you want to price a job competitively (im talking larger commercial, industrial jobs) then using the adiabatic is alot more accurate, if were talking about large SWA cables from say 95mm upwards you will find a seperate earth costs a fair bit... 50mm BS6491x say 150m.... NOT CHEAP! a simple calc.. oh its not required so why bother....?

If anyone wants a bit more clarity on this like exactly how the calculation is made (can show examples) then let me know as i would be more than happy to help....!

cheers Dave

An SWA will still have it's armour though.....which is what the thread was started about.

 

[Dave_]

hi Lenny! or Hola! (living in Barcelona! dont ask about the electrics over here, was just running my finger along my missus parents very shiny metal cooker hood today and i could feel a lovely 50hz... what do you mean earthing? ha ha.....)

I dont really understand what you mean by an SWA having its armour.... of course it will....? can you explain what you mean? bit lost as usual... ha ha!

cheers my friend

Dave

 

[Dave_]

Show me the calcs Dave!

Seriously though lately i've been trying to gen up on using the adiabatic more lately as like you say the cost can differ massively on some jobs

Cheers

Yeah of course no probs mate... Ill dig out some calcs from my project on distribution circuits and put up some nice detailed examples..... Watch this space....

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I'm supprised that no one has mentioned that running a separate CPC contravenes BS7671.
Specifically Regulation 521.5.2.

 

[Dave_]

Hello again sparkies, here is a snippet of my project submitted for 2391-20 qualification regarding minimum size of CPC, proving the armouring is sufficient....

Minimum Size of CPC

Here I will calculate the minimum size of CPC in accordance with regulation 541.1.3 of BS7671.
Primarily I will need to calculate the minimum size of CPC (or confirm the armouring is adequate) of the distribution cables. I already know that the external loop impedance value is 0.08Ω, so I will now focus on the distribution cable to the distribution board, and secondly the supply cable between the suppliers cut-out and the CCU.
I have used data from AEI cables (this can be found in the index) to ascertain the values for conductor and armour resistance.
Distribution circuit to DB3
I will use the equation: Zs = Ze(R1+R2)
Ze = 0.08
R1 = 0.342 mΩ/m (at 90°C, i will not need to apply a correction factor of 1.28)
R2 = 1.2 mΩ/m (armour resistance)
Circuit length = 24m
Therefore: 0.342 + 1.2 = 1.542 mΩ/m × 24 = 37mΩ or 0.037Ω
0.037 + 0.08 = 0.117Ω
I can now calculate the fault current using the following equation:

If= Uo/Zs
Where If = fault current, Uo = line voltage to earth and Zs = total loop impedance
If= 230/0.117=1966A
Using Amtech software at work I have sourced the relevant time current graphs for SQUARE-D BSEN 60947-3 MCCB’s which I will use in the installation (I will go into more detail in part 7, time current graphs can be found in the index)
Using time current graph number 1: t = 0.1s @ 1966A
This is perfectly acceptable, maximum disconnection time = 5 seconds (over 32A)

I will now use the adiabatic equation below to confirm that the armouring of the cable can withstand the level of fault current:
S= √(I²×t)/k

Values for k can be found on p129 BS7671 (in this case table 54.4, the armour of a cable)

S= √(1966²×0.1)/46=13.5mm²

Using the table provided by AEI I can see that a 70mm² four core cable has a 131mm² armour CSA, therefore this is perfectly acceptable.


This shows that the armouring can handle 10x the amount of fault current that is required....!! no need for seperate CPC ;-)

Please note: values for armour and conductor resistance are from AEI cables, vvv useful!!! as you dont find them in the regs book, OSG etc. (OSG up to 50mm and doesnt show armour resistance.... there is a way of calculating conductor resistance but i cant remember how.....

Was going to post link to AEI site but you need to be a member to view the datasheets.... if anyone wants to see them and needs assistance then let me know

hope this helps AMP DAVID!!!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Here's a link to a site with relavant CSAs for both 70 degree and 90 degree armours:
steel wire armour as the earth conductor
The site has a number of downloads that may be usefull.

 

[IQ Electrical]

I'm supprised that no one has mentioned that running a separate CPC contravenes BS7671.
Specifically Regulation 521.5.2.

Indeed it does however IEE Guidance Note 8 (9.3.4) describes the procedure for sizing 'a separate green-and-yellow covered copper conductor'

While the Guidance Notes are not BS7671, they are published by the same organisation and the whole series should be treated with the same respect afforded to Guidance Note 3.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I understand that the amendment out later this year may allow an exception to this Regulation for SWA, although nothing's definate yet.

 

[IQ Electrical]

These requirements do not preclude the use of an additional protective conductor in parallel with the steel wire armouring
of a cable where such is required to comply with the requirements of the appropriate regulations in Chapters 41 and 54. It​

is permitted for such an additional protective conductor to enter the ferrous enclosure individually.

We live in hope!

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I've always found it a bit odd, not allowed a separate CPC, but are allowed a supplementary bonding conductor.
As if the bonding conductor wouldn't carry any of the fault current.

 

[andyb]

I'm supprised that no one has mentioned that running a separate CPC contravenes BS7671.
Specifically Regulation 521.5.2.

Where does that reg state that you can't run a separate cpc.

It's referring specifically to single core armoured cable in an ac circuit.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Where does that reg state that you can't run a separate cpc.

It's referring specifically to single core armoured cable in an ac circuit.

It doesn't just refer specifically to single core armoured cable.
If you read more than the first sentance you would note that it also refers to conductors in ferromagnetic enclosures, and that with an a.c. circuit; all Line conductors, the Neutral and the appropriate protective conductor have to be contained in the same enclosure.
Now unless you are suggesting that SWA is not ferromagnetic, and the armour does not meet the definition in Part 2 of an enclosure, then the Regulation applies.

 

[andyb]

I take your point sinlondon but I would see the armour as mechanical protection and not the enclousure. Also the cpc does not carry current in normal use so there would not be a problem.

It's not that clear is it, but I would say the words 'conductors of an ac circuit installed in a ferromagnetic enclosure suggests that the regs are referring to cable in trunking or conduit etc.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

Unfortunately whether the intention was to include SWA or not, the actual wording entails SWA is included.
SWA is ferromagnetic and meets the definition of an enclosure in Part 2, because it provides mechanical protection.
I believe IQ Electrical in post 40 has quoted the wording from the proposed amendment.
As you can see this is intended to remove this requirement from applying to SWA.
As yet the proposed amendment content and wording has not been finalised to my knowledge.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Yes, Spinlondon is right, ridiculous contradictions between BS7671 and Guidance Note 8.

The original reason for the reg was to nul circulating currents, following it to the letter would preclude the use of conventional pvc/pvc switch drops where the neutral would not be present.

 

[andyb]

I think you are both reading to much into this.
Running a separate earth is an industry wide practice that has been in use for generations. The reg you're quoting is written for single swa cable & ferromagnetic enclosures. This reminds me of the 15th edition when it came out and everyone bonding any piece of metal in the home.

As regards a switch drop, a length of conduit with a live & switch live in it has no current flowing through it in normal circumstances so there would not be a problem.

 

[IQ Electrical]

Andy, don't think that I'm saying 'don't run a separate cpc with swa' that's not the case, I'm merely agreeing with Spinlondon on the interpretation.

 

[andyb]

I know IQ, as I said it's not clear. I just think that in this instance the IEE are not meaning the armoure as an enclosure as stated. Which is why they say single armoured cable & ferromagnetic enclosures. Otherwise they would not say single core armoured, as it would apply to all armoured.
(if that makes sense)

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I know IQ, as I said it's not clear. I just think that in this instance the IEE are not meaning the armoure as an enclosure as stated. Which is why they say single armoured cable & ferromagnetic enclosures. Otherwise they would not say single core armoured, as it would apply to all armoured.
(if that makes sense)

This Regulation is aimed at mitigating the effects that are caused by unwanted magnetic fields (eddy currents).
They did not include multicore SWA cables in with the single core SWA cables, simply because multicore SWA cables are acceptable for a.c. circuits.
It is quite obvious that SWA is considered to cause unwanted magnetic fields, otherwise there would be no constraints against using the single core SWA cables.
They haven't specifically mentioned multicore SWA cables, just as they haven't specifically mentioned galvonised steel conduit, galvonised steel trunking or even maleable iron conduit as all of these are covered by the term 'ferromagnetic enclosure'.
Now you have stated that the practice of running a separate earth has been in use for generations.
Are you sure that it has been for that long, and do you know whether the separate earth is a CPC, or a bonding conductor?
The armour while acceptable for a CPC, is not acceptable for bonding, as such a separate conductor is required.