Am I being a snob, or is this actually dangerous

[Inteificio]

On a distribution board last week in a farm house, I saw 2 core 4mm SWA with the sheath terminated by having a couple of strands in a terminal block.

A photo would save a thousand words, but I found out on that day that my camera phone is not waterproof =-(

The other sparky on site said it is fine if the Zs is in, which I accepted at the time.

Then I got thinking, the Zs will make sure the fuse trips, but how can you guarantee conductor safety while the fuse is tripping?
We had a similar issue in our factory where a spark proved that a distribution circuit would blow in 4s, within the limit. However I pointed out the wires would be melting the insulation after 1s.

I can do the calcs to prove how hot that conductor will get, but that is not sparky level maths and I know the guy who installed it won't be able to do that.

So my question is:

When is it ever safe to terminate only a couple of strands of the armouring on SWA when it is being used as the CPC.

This is quite important as I am going to be politely confronting the guy, and I don't want to risk causing offence if I am wrong. I will be the first to admit domestic is not my speciality.

 

[trev]

So my question is:

When is it ever safe to terminate only a couple of strands of the armouring on SWA when it is being used as the CPC.

.

Never, just do it right imho

 

[Sparky_Ben]

was it not made off using and appropriate gland?
either way i would say it is defiantely not acceptable

 

[Guest112]

code 2

 

[Inteificio]

literally two strands of the SWA were in a terminal block, a separate wire went from the other side of the terminal block to the earth bar.

 

[Guest112]

adiabatic equasion?

 

[Engineer54]

First off, ....All SWA ends should always be terminated with an appropriate sized gland, that encompasses ALL of the SWA strands!! The CSA of the SWA of an armoured cable enabling it to comply as a CPC is based on all the strands, not just a couple of them. The very fact that this SWA hasn't been glanded off, shows the lack of professionalism shown to this installation. Geezus, even a spring clamp with a braided earthing conductor would have been better than what your describing.

There is no way i can see this unconventional cable termination complying with any regulations within BS7671... Full stop!!!

 

[Inteificio]

adiabatic equasion?

That would be my way to go, calculating heat loss to the surrounding would be a pain in the arse and not increase the accuracy to any great extent.

My method would be calculating the peak current flow, then calculating the resistance of those two strands, the power dissipated in the two strands. Using the specific heat capacity of steel, we could then work out the rate of temperature increase. Work out the disconnection time and therefore the end temp of the steel wire.

Not exactly rocket science, but in turn quite a few competent sparkies would struggle with that.

The reason I have not done the maths, is to me it is beside the point. That steel might only get to 120 degs, but the fact is I know the sparky who fitted it will not have done the maths and I want to know how he demonstrated it was safe!

 

[Silly Sausage]

On a distribution board ............

Haha...Unbelievable!
I'd be interested in seeing the last PIR for that install.

 

[Engineer54]

That would be my way to go, calculating heat loss to the surrounding would be a pain in the arse and not increase the accuracy to any great extent.

My method would be calculating the peak current flow, then calculating the resistance of those two strands, the power dissipated in the two strands. Using the specific heat capacity of steel, we could then work out the rate of temperature increase. Work out the disconnection time and therefore the end temp of the steel wire.

Not exactly rocket science, but in turn quite a few competent sparkies would struggle with that.

The reason I have not done the maths, is to me it is beside the point. That steel might only get to 120 degs, but the fact is I know the sparky who fitted it will not have done the maths and I want to know how he demonstrated it was safe!

He can't, the very connection method is non-compliant, so i don't really know why your even bothering to justify or not with calculations. The termination of this SWA cable needs correcting, ...it's as simple as that!! You can't justify the present method by calculation or by any other means...

 

[Inteificio]

Documentation is not yet completed as job not finished. It is actually at my parents house as they are having some work done.

I popped up for Christmas and had a look while I was there, some of his work I quite liked, but this was my main concern.

It does kind of shock me, even taking in to account that this sparky knew that I was an electrical engineer and was probably going to have a nosey at his work, he still did this.

That is what made me doubt myself and double check, he knew that I would look at his work, surely he would be on best behaviour?

When my NIC man came to look at my stuff I spent twice as long making sure it looked extra nice!


The other main fault he did made me laugh, there is no power to two sockets on a ring. There was some boarding leaning up against them, so my money is he forgot to second fix them as he didn't see them behind the board. To me that isn't as dangerous, just funny.

 

[1shortcircuit]

I saw 2 core 4mm SWA with the sheath terminated by having a couple of strands in a terminal block.

Glands serve a purpose as you are fully aware. First question I would need to ask is what was supporting the weight of the SWA if a gland was not in use? I would not be happy with this if it was an installation I was working on but that's easy to say sat from behind my laptop screen in the comfort of my front room

I'd dread to think what else you may find if you had the opportunity to look more closely.

Shame about your phone, a picture would have been great:thumbsup

 

[Inteificio]

He can't, the very connection method is non-compliant, so i don't really know why your even bothering to justify or not with calculations. The termination of this SWA cable needs correcting, ...it's as simple as that!! You can't justify the present method by calculation or by any other means...

To me that is a grey area. BS7671 is non-statutory, as long as I can demonstrate something is safe, then I am fine with it.

A lot of the stuff I deal with is very high temp, BS7671 doesn't cover what I do, so I always rationalise along the lines of, In the event of a fire can I stand up in front of a court room and explain without any doubt what I did was safe and why.

I didn't do the maths, just explained my method in case there was any interest. The reason I didn't do the math is that he can't; therefore he could not use that as defence. I wanted to know what he would say to the judge if there was a fire at my parents house.

 

[Engineer54]

Documentation is not yet completed as job not finished. It is actually at my parents house as they are having some work done.

I popped up for Christmas and had a look while I was there, some of his work I quite liked, but this was my main concern.

It does kind of shock me, even taking in to account that this sparky knew that I was an electrical engineer and was probably going to have a nosey at his work, he still did this.

That is what made me doubt myself and double check, he knew that I would look at his work, surely he would be on best behaviour?

When my NIC man came to look at my stuff I spent twice as long making sure it looked extra nice!


The other main fault he did made me laugh, there is no power to two sockets on a ring. There was some boarding leaning up against them, so my money is he forgot to second fix them as he didn't see them behind the board. To me that isn't as dangerous, just funny.

More to the point, ...What are you going to do about this SWA termination?? Are you actually going to let it stand??

 

[Inteificio]

First question I would need to ask is what was supporting the weight of the SWA if a gland was not in use?

lol - I completely missed that....

Good point, the wire is floating free in the board, vertically coming through the base of the box. The only things holding it up are it's own rigidity and those two wires.

Can't believe I overlooked something so obvious.



As to what I should do, I bowed to the experience of my friend (FAR my superior in electrical knowledge).

I am writing down all the relevant problems and waiting until the work is signed off, and seeing what is still there.

My friend has done a lot of inspections, and the most common line he got was "that is just a temporary fix until the parts arrive".

Never call a sparky on something if they can wiggle their way out, sparkies are cunning and will always have a good excuse.

However it is hard to explain how a job they have signed off and certified is in breach of regs.


So basically, wait until he has finished and signed off the job.
Check to see if he has fixed all the issues.

If he has not, then confront him directly and ask him to rationalise his decisions, then see what my parents want to do.


You never know, he might have everything perfect when I go back; however I bloody doubt it. If you can see ANY copper on a main board I build, I feel like I have ****ed up. I could have traded the amount of copper showing on his for a small holiday!

 

[Sparky_Ben]

Seems you generalised all sparkies there, in my opinion a good spark won't make excuses the work will be done right without problems to the regulations

 

[Inteificio]

I guess I did, no offence intended.

If one of my directors spots a mistake, you bet ya I have a good explanation ready!

If another sparky spots one, I thank them, learn from the experience and make sure I never do it again.

 

[Sparky_Ben]

That's ok then, true another set of eyes may spot something you might have missed

 

[Engineer54]

I really cant believe all this!! That SWA cable needs glanding, there is no ifs or buts about it!! There aren't any excuses this electrician can come up with to substantiate not glanding a SWA cable entering an enclose, especially a DB/CU... End off!!

 

[Engineer54]

To me that is a grey area. BS7671 is non-statutory, as long as I can demonstrate something is safe, then I am fine with it.

A lot of the stuff I deal with is very high temp, BS7671 doesn't cover what I do, so I always rationalise along the lines of, In the event of a fire can I stand up in front of a court room and explain without any doubt what I did was safe and why.

I didn't do the maths, just explained my method in case there was any interest. The reason I didn't do the math is that he can't; therefore he could not use that as defence. I wanted to know what he would say to the judge if there was a fire at my parents house.

Are you being serious here?? Grey area?? non-statutory, so it makes it all right to make up your own judgement on a clear non-compliant termination of a cable?? So you could turn round and say, that you can forget the BRB and make your own judgement on whether anything is safe or not!!! Who gives a dam about the math's here, or what an old dud of a judge would say!!!! ...You know that this termination is non-compliant and therefore not acceptable, what the hell else do you need to know, before you snag it!!

 

[Inteificio]

Which part of BS-7671 being not statutory, and therefore not being law, and therefore not having to be complied with literally to comply with the law do you disagree with?

You do not have to adhere to bs7671 to the letter to be legal, or to be safe.

However I would never terminate a cable like the above, I would consider it unsafe, hence me being on here asking more experienced people their opinion.

Regarding what the judge would say. If you have breached the BS7671 regs and there was an electrical fire, he is the guy who you would have to convince.

Personally if I was signing off that termination it would be a Cat 1 fail as a fire risk, but that is just me. I prefer my cat 1 fails as they cover my arse.

 

[wildgoose]

Why we don't use the same logic as your mate which only considers the resistance value and not CSA of the earth conductor??

If we did, then it means we could normally wire all the earths in 2mm cable. It would meet the ohmic value and save us heaps of money!!

It would also be totally inapropriate for dealing with any faults currents. Could this be just why main earths in houses are at 16mm???????????

 

[Guest123]

Rgardless of BS 7671 being statutory or not, if the issue remains after the final sign off, the installation will not comply as it will not be installed to BS 7671 as claimed.

510.3 refers to manufacturers instructions.

 

[telectrix]

and if those 2 strands were to snap due to mechanical stress, ask him what would then carry a fault current. beggars belief that anyone with basic electrical knowledge would even consider such an arrangement. it's like a plumber trying to plug a 22mm pipe with a 15mm stop-end. ( come to think of it, is this so-called electrician a retrained plumber?)

 

[Marvo]

I would also say that regardless of any reassurances by the installer it needs glanding on both ends. I would take a photo and send him a snag order, end of story. On something as blatant as this I wouldn't even quote the regs or be prepared to get into a discussion about it.

 

[netblindpaul]

BS7671 may not be statutory, but good old Part P is, and even if the work is not notifiable under pt P it still must comply, which requires it to comply with 7671, there in you have 4 reasons for non compliance already.
1. mechanical support or the lack of to relieve the stresses and strains on the connection
2. manuf instructions which will require the cable be correctly glanded
3. fault current calcs
4. the requirement in 7671 for suitable materials and workmanship

Oh and the same requirement in 4 above in building regs.

Get it sorted mate you know you want to!

 

[Guest112]

i dont understand the issue of glanding is he not capable?

 

[morph]

if the swa is the cpc then both ends need terminating in a suitable manner which is usually by means of a gland, another method may be appropiate

i assume the consumer unit is plastic and this is why he has not glanded it,
if he has used cleats then the cable is suported and so you cant use the mechanical support arguement
it is clearly a sloppy job,

 

[morph]

BS7671 may not be statutory, but good old Part P is, and even if the work is not notifiable under pt P it still must comply, which requires it to comply with 7671, there in you have 4 reasons for non compliance already.
1. mechanical support or the lack of to relieve the stresses and strains on the connection
2. manuf instructions which will require the cable be correctly glanded
3. fault current calcs
4. the requirement in 7671 for suitable materials and workmanship

Oh and the same requirement in 4 above in building regs.

Get it sorted mate you know you want to!

thats right regulation 7 i believe
as i said sloppy..

 

[netblindpaul]

You could probably also find something in the Construction Design & Management Regulations to have him on as well, they are statute law!

 

[Engineer54]

This is going to be my last word on this matter...

If you think for a even a second, that a BS standard won't count for anything in a court of law then your very much mistaken. As far as i know, there have been quite a few cases of non compliance, or where electrical installations have caused injury or destruction of property. Guess what publication was heavily used to prove the parties responsible, ...guilty of professional neglect!!!

The only way you can circumvent BS7671 is by improvement, ie, ...designing/installing to a higher standard or level than that stated in BS7671... After all The Reg's are classified as the ''Minimum'' requirements of electrical installations!!


You say in one of your posts, that your an Electrical Engineer, yet you don't seem to be aware of all the implications, when a simple SWA cable hasn't been terminated correctly, or as in this case, a complete pigs ear of a job has been made of the termination...


As a final thought, i'm not sure i would call a guy a mate, who is willing to install and leave an installation at my parents home in this condition, and then have the cheek to hold his hand out for payment!! lol!!!

 

[Guest112]

agreed i really dont see the reasoning to not gland the cable clearly the spark isnt capable and will not admit it, if he cant gland an armoured i wonder what else he cant do, also regardless if your an engineer and you can do maths sparks cant well done you unnecessary calculations imo as a simple solution is there,

rather than trying to find an answer on here to justify poor workmanship you shouldve rang the spark and told him to get back to the job and do it again

 

[Knobhead]

Out of interest how is the cable terminated at the remote end?

 

[Dan the spark]

It must have taken him more time to bell out the 2cores in question at each end to find the right ones then it would have to have put 10 glands on?:dunce:

 

[Dan the spark]

Hopefully he hasn't just guessed them? Especially if the circuit has been energised?
As for leaving 2 socket fronts off, does this guy not carry out ring continuity tests before energising???

 

[trev]

I have to say, this guy sounds bloody dangerous to me. A non tested RFC with live ends flapping about, an swa hanging on it's terminations. What else has he not done right that hasn't been found yet?
I think I'd be showing him the door.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

I really cant believe all this!! That SWA cable needs glanding, there is no ifs or buts about it!! There aren't any excuses this electrician can come up with to substantiate not glanding a SWA cable entering an enclose, especially a DB/CU... End off!!

it isn`t just the fact that the damned thing wasn`t glanded....the dis board`s IP rating will have been compromised by this n all....shocking....truely shocking....

 

[GLENNSPARK]

and on that basis i saw earlier in this thread it had been given a "2" by a poster on here......to me its a 1...

 

[dez0178]

Always bare in mind, You should always follow the reg's, and every termination should be of a High quality, as allready stated there should be all strands present, not just a couple. If you are in doubt and question the quality of work you see, then bet your bottom dollar, it's not good enough mate. Always do the best you can do, if you wouldn't like that in your house then don't do it in others.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Hopefully he hasn't just guessed them? Especially if the circuit has been energised?
As for leaving 2 socket fronts off, does this guy not carry out ring continuity tests before energising???

probably no real loop value taken here either.......so disconnection times may not have been met....think i would be having a look round all the accessories/terminations here n all....bet you find a wrong polarity or three..lol.....

 

[1shortcircuit]

Well Re the thread title I would like to think that everyone is in agreement.

You are not being a snob, this really is very dangerous if the installation has been energised :thumbsup

 

[D Skelton]

and on that basis i saw earlier in this thread it had been given a "2" by a poster on here......to me its a 1...

Gotta disagree with that buddy As shocking as it is to think that someone could terminate SWA in a connector block, it still at that moment in time provides an earth path. Acceptable or not, it poses no immediate danger, just the possibility of future danger, therefore a code 2. Those are my thoughts anyway.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

Gotta disagree with that buddy As shocking as it is to think that someone could terminate SWA in a connector block, it still at that moment in time provides an earth path. Acceptable or not, it poses no immediate danger, just the possibility of future danger, therefore a code 2. Those are my thoughts anyway.

yes but i thought that had already been covered by earlier posts....it was the fact that the cable hadn`t been glanded/secured at all which thus was also compromising the IP rating of the c/u.....

 

[GLENNSPARK]

all in all its a load of crap and woe betide anyone who ever worked for me doing something like that...and i got called out after em to sort it.....woe betide em......

 

[Engineer54]

Gotta disagree with that buddy As shocking as it is to think that someone could terminate SWA in a connector block, it still at that moment in time provides an earth path. Acceptable or not, it poses no immediate danger, just the possibility of future danger, therefore a code 2. Those are my thoughts anyway.

Were not talking about doing a PIR here, were talking about a new build. Coding doesn't come into it, it's a straight up and down, non-complying pigs ear of a job and needs correcting....

 

[D Skelton]

yes but i thought that had already been covered by earlier posts....it was the fact that the cable hadn`t been glanded/secured at all which thus was also compromising the IP rating of the c/u.....

Still, I wouldn't class that as immediate danger, just my opinion. Codes are open to interpretation though I suppose. Some may say C1, some may say C2, either way, it means it needs sorting out! lol.

all in all its a load of crap and woe betide anyone who ever worked for me doing something like that...and i got called out after em to sort it.....woe betide em......

I fully agree!

Were not talking about doing a PIR here, were talking about a new build. Coding doesn't come into it, it's a straight up and down, non-complying pigs ear of a job and needs correcting....

You're right, totally, however I think I skimmed through a lot of posts and that's why I'm off digressing with Glenn but anyway, It's interesting to see what others would code it as if it were a PIR.

To the OP, give the spark (and I use that word very loosely) who set this up in your old dears house a good hard slap will ya! And most importantly, don't hand over a penny until it's sorted! If you turned up in court using the defence "But BS 7671 is non-statutory isn't it???..." any judge would throw the book at you!

The guy who set this up at your mums is a complete douche! simple as!

 

[GLENNSPARK]

well lets say ...a blank was missing from one of the unused ways on this c/u......what would you give it?....a dangerous situation?....

 

[D Skelton]

well lets say ...a blank was missing from one of the unused ways on this c/u......what would you give it?....a dangerous situation?....

Tough one! ermmm, it all depends I think. If it was easily accessible to anybody and had no other form of cover then probably yes, but if it was fitted high up maybe in a meter cupboard and the CU had a front cover of some kind, similar to the covers Contactum use over their CU's then maybe no.

TBH, I think in 99% of cases I would have to give that a C1 to be safe. It all depends on that all important interpretation of the words 'immediate danger'.

 

[GLENNSPARK]

its a "1" mate...stonewall to me...

 

[D Skelton]

Your PIR, your coding innit