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

 

[James]

The earth lead between enclosure and fitting is part of the fitting and therefore subject to type testing and ce certification.
fixed wiring ends at the termination point so no code, but if you want to it could be put in the notes.

 

[Buzz1980]

Thanks for the response . So no code should be put down for earth of a T&E cable outside of the Downlight fitting enclosure ?

 

[westward10]

No the cpc of a T&E cable requires enclosure.

 

[Buzz1980]

Ok that’s great thank you

 

[davesparks]

How are they connected? If the connection is good then I would say no code.

Remember an EICR is not the same as initial verification, you are not assessing absolute compliance with bs7671.

If the connection is sound then it is neither a C1 or C2.

That leaves C3 as the only possibility, so what improvent for safety could be recommended?

 

[davesparks]

No the cpc of a T&E cable requires enclosure.

Does it?
The way I read 526.8 and 526.5 is that live and PEN conductors must be enclosed. The CPC would be excluded from that requirement.

 

[Buzz1980]

Connections are good they are the LAP fittings where they don’t have a earth connection so they have neatly termed the L&N of the T&E folded the CPC back outside of the term box and then installed connector block and wago on some cases. This is just directly outside of enclosure then taped the earth connection back on to the T&E ?

 

[Buzz1980]

Does it?
The way I read 526.8 and 526.5 is that live and PEN conductors must be enclosed. The CPC would be excluded from that requirement.

That is my thinking behind that reg, that all live conductors required to be enclosed, so the CPC won’t be require to be enclosed ?

 

[davesparks]

Connections are good they are the LAP fittings where they don’t have a earth connection so they have neatly termed the L&N of the T&E folded the CPC back outside of the term box and then installed connector block and wago on some cases. This is just directly outside of enclosure then taped the earth connection back on to the T&E ?

My personal opinion, others will disagree, is that I wouldn't code that as long as the live conductors are properly enclosed.

 

[littlespark]

Looking at the image, the cpc is indeed enclosed, but there is a pigtail coming out which is part of the fitting.
To me, that's not part of the fixed wiring, so not part of the EICR.
Not a code as such, but could be mentioned in the notes.

Be different if the cpc was not connected at all, unenclosed connectors, etc, which is how we find a lot of downlights put in by diy dodgers.

 

[ipf]

IT looks pretty certain that in those attached photos there is an earth connection in the unit.
If there isn't there is certainly scope for putting one in the terminal enclosure.
If they are the ones being tested, you'd have to remove the earth wire from the enclosure for it to be terminated it outside.

 

[brianmoooore]

Connections are good they are the LAP fittings where they don’t have a earth connection so they have neatly termed the L&N of the T&E folded the CPC back outside of the term box and then installed connector block and wago on some cases. This is just directly outside of enclosure then taped the earth connection back on to the T&E ?

Someone has added an earth connection to a double insulated fitting?

 

[Buzz1980]

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 ?

 

[ipf]

Someone has added an earth connection to a double insulated fitting?

No, the connectors are taped to the cable.

 

[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.

 

[Pretty Mouth]

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

Agreed

 

[Pretty Mouth]

I think I know the LAP downlights the OP means (not the ones pictured), and have on occasion fitted them myself when supplied by a customer. I did the same, sheathed and folded the CPC back along the sheath and joined with a wago outside of the enclosure. While non-compliant, I don't see any real benefit in terms of safety in wiring in junction boxes to enclose the CPC connection.

 

[westward10]

You would have to list that as a departure then.

 

[pirate]

If you use the early Quinetic stuff, there is nowhere to park an unused cpc...some folk seem to manage to squeeze it into the connector block...but I don't.
Loop it outside, properly terminated into a Wago...and move on. It's completely obvious what it is, and it is instantly available for use as a cpc if required.
Maybe in 50 years, it might be disturbed...maybe in 5 years the rodents might attack!
Maybe we'll all be dead by then...but the looped-out cpc will not have been the cause of our demise, I'm pretty sure!

 

[westward10]

If you use the early Quinetic stuff, there is nowhere to park an unused cpc...some folk seem to manage to squeeze it into the connector block...but I don't.
Loop it outside, properly terminated into a Wago...and move on. It's completely obvious what it is, and it is instantly available for use as a cpc if required.
Maybe in 50 years, it might be disturbed...maybe in 5 years the rodents might attack!
Maybe we'll all be dead by then...but the looped-out cpc will not have been the cause of our demise, I'm pretty sure!

Then that is a non compliant installation, I assume you note this as a departure.

 

[James]

If you use the early Quinetic stuff, there is nowhere to park an unused cpc...some folk seem to manage to squeeze it into the connector block...but I don't.
Loop it outside, properly terminated into a Wago...and move on. It's completely obvious what it is, and it is instantly available for use as a cpc if required.

presumably in a wago box or other enclosure as per the instructions?

 

[pirate]

Yes, clearly a departure, and noted as such...but if enclosed suitably, then not a problem. What you actually do is a question of choice/location/circumstances/preference...we may have to adhere to standards, but we are professionals too...if we can justify it, we should stick by it.
A superflous cpc at a class 2 luminaire with a cpc in an external Wago is not a problem. The fitting doesn't need it.
A cpc available at every light fitting is a good thing.
A change to a Class 1 luminaire means a cpc is available, and at that time, proper enclosure is important.
Always be aware that YOUR choice is going to be questioned...and be prepared to defend your choice with robust and valid arguments. Don't be afraid of the "rules Gods", just have a reasoned approach to defend, and state your case accordingly.
Yes, I know...don't start, ok? Do it right, or do it right enough and safely.

 

[westward10]

Yes but you can't defend it what should have happened is a suitable luminaire connector with a two core cable. This is the professional approach.

 

[123]

@westward10 How does anyone fit these correctly?

 

[pirate]

Not sure what you mean Westy...if i had a suitable class 2 luminaire then a cpc wouldn't be needed. A 2 core cable serving it would be fine, but not future proof. I'd rather cable for what might be, rather than what is...so cpc at each lighting point, which is now the norm...
and if the cpc isn't required, at least it is there for future use. OK, a "floating" cpc isn't ideal, but connected in a Wago or Ideal it's not exactly going to kill anyone is it?
Oh...look. we have a fault on the lighting circuit...the mcb has tripped!
No! It's worse...the rcd has tripped... or the rcbo...
I know! Let's open up the Wagos that have the cpc connectivity and lick the bare ends!
Westy, we looked at a poor connector...but we both know there are various ways of sorting that out...I totally agree with your scenario of perfection, but in the real world I do feel there is room for variation, provided you can justify it...that's all I'm saying. In a previous life, I argued black was white...and sometimes it was.
Having said all that...
We all should strive to do what is best, and if that's not possible, do what is as near to best as we can manage.
and if that's not possible?
Bodge it!
,,,but bodge it safely!
It's what we have to do...sometimes.

 

[westward10]

Yes but you can't justify it. This is nothing to do with perfection the correct means is simple. Three core to a suitable luminaire connector then two core from this connector to the light fitting.
The rest of your post is somewhat meaningless.

 

[westward10]

View attachment 105575

@westward10 How does anyone fit these correctly?

They would fit directly into a bin.

 

[pirate]

I'm not sure that we are actually looking at the same scenario Westy...your reply suggests we are viewing a totally different installation.
Yes, a 3-core to a 2-core...perfection...but how often do we see this when installing new fittings? We see 2-core and cpc, so the question is what to do with the cpc?
I guess we would all have a different solution...but I do like your thinking on this...and will take it on board for the future.
Meantime, if I am faced with fitting some Class 2 lights, I'll loop the cpc rather than cutting it off, and if the "loop" is outside an enclosure, but unlikely to be interfered with, I will sleep ok. In any other circumstance, I'll enclose it.
Thank you for your valuable input, because I know you are one for the best installation practice. I just think that sometimes there is a safe alternative where the risk is minimal, and I am prepared to defend my choice in those circumstances.

 

[westward10]

You have no defence.

 

[123]

They would fit directly into a bin.

I agree on that...
But these are still commonly sold in the UK via DIY outlets : (

 

[pirate]

I beg to differ...
and I am confident in that...
I am sorry that you can't see my viewpoint, but we'll leave it there.
Thank you for your input because it is always so measured and of value.
I will still loop a spare cpc at the fitting!

 

[pirate]

Oh...and I do have a defence!

 

[pirate]

but one which will remain in my domain...

 

[westward10]

Oh...and I do have a defence!

No you don't.

 

[pirate]

Oh well...I'll leave it there, thank you...
If you ever need a defence, let me know...
some of us have other expertise...