Discuss Termination of SWA into new style flush Consumer Units in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Reaction score
20
Does anyone have any thoughts on the best way to terminate an SWA into the new style flush CUs such as Hager's, BG's etc.? I ask as all seem to either employ oval or square knockouts, which is great for the surface boards when using truncking etc. but no great if you are trying to comply with Reg 522.6.204 and 522.6.204 where your tails would effectively be inside a wall / burried less than 50mm from the surface.

So far the best but not really ideal solution I have come with for top or bottom entry (to overcome what seems like a design flaw to myself) is that you would need to terminate the armoured cable into something like a galvanised adaptable box that you mount hard up aginst the bottom of the CU oval / sqaure entry to get the SWAs cores safely into the CU (using gromet / gromet strip on all edges etc.). I know the Hager board has a round KO on the left and right hand side but this would causes an issue in most cases in terms of space to allow for the cable bend. You then have issues with your cables falling outside of prescribed zones as you are likely to want to route them verticle up or down in the wall once out of the CU.

So intrested to know what others think would be a good solution or thoughts from anyone who has had to fit any of these newer flush units.
 
I use a holesaw.
I also thought of that but due to the position of the KOs and the frame that then sits indside the CU to allow for different wall depths there doesn't seem like there is enough material left to not weaken the CUs integrity too much. I have uploaded the Hager flush PDF for refereance as just one example.

Also for anyone with too much time on their hands ;) here is the Hager video on their flush CUs


Looking at their video unless there is a 30ma RCD upstream then the example installation is no compliant with the regs. If there is a 30ma RCD upstream then there is no way of ensuring selectivity if the board is full of 30ma RCBOs
 

Attachments

  • ZD0828.PDF
    1.9 MB · Views: 11
Last edited:
A lot of copper showing there on the factory fitted links.

There always are unfortunately. Comes from the insulation being a sleeving rather than being bonded to the conductor more tightly like in tails cables.
 
There always are unfortunately. Comes from the insulation being a sleeving rather than being bonded to the conductor more tightly like in tails cables.

I take your point about the gland but was considering whether that was the lesser of the two evils in terms of providing suitable mechanical protection. With an SWA where the armour is not being relied on for the earthing arrangements (so 3 core SWA single phase) and the other end is earthed and inspectable. Is that worse that say using metal protection such as trunking (conduit would require adaptable box with no means of verifying that the consuit was earthed once all sealed up) where the earthing arrangments of the trunking could not be verified either once burried.
 
I take your point about the gland but was considering whether that was the lesser of the two evils in terms of providing suitable mechanical protection. With an SWA where the armour is not being relied on for the earthing arrangements (so 3 core SWA single phase) and the other end is earthed and inspectable. Is that worse that say using metal protection such as trunking (conduit would require adaptable box with no means of verifying that the consuit was earthed once all sealed up) where the earthing arrangments of the trunking could not be verified either once burried.

I was meaning the use of steel protection for the tails that would protect against nails and screws which does not require earthing.

You could just do what all the other new build lads do and just stuff the swa through the back of the board with no gland or anything. Seems to be the current standard.
 
Why not use metal protection for the tails so they comply with 522.6.204 ?
A buried gland is not accessible for inspection.

In this instance, would the gland not be identifiable (from inside the CU), therefore easily located and could be inspected with the removal of a piece of plasterboard? Its not as if the joint is being buried in the ground, aka reg 526.3.
 
In this instance, would the gland not be identifiable (from inside the CU), therefore easily located and could be inspected with the removal of a piece of plasterboard? Its not as if the joint is being buried in the ground, aka reg 526.3.

It's not usual to have to dismantle the fabric of the building during an inspection.
 
As long as one gland is readily accessible at the source end and the armour is not relied upon for the cpc it does not really matter if one is no longer accessible as it serves one purpose, connection of the cable. Verifying its integrity down the line is not an issue.
 
In this instance, would the gland not be identifiable (from inside the CU), therefore easily located and could be inspected with the removal of a piece of plasterboard? Its not as if the joint is being buried in the ground, aka reg 526.3.

The trouble with a lot of the flush boards is the gland would have to be made off inside a seperate enclosure outside of the CU as they do not have round KOs or enough remain space around the pre punched oval or sqaure KOs to make your own whole. As I say seems like a lot of a design own goal really...
 
If there is space behind the board in the cavity and it does not restrict the cable route get a steel adaptable box, chuck/recycle the lid and fix to the back of the board using the old lid fixing points. Gland cable to the side of the box.
 
As long as one gland is readily accessible at the source end and the armour is not relied upon for the cpc it does not really matter if one is no longer accessible as it serves one purpose, connection of the cable.

Yes as long as the armour is earthed at the source end, it’s not really necessary to have access to the gland at the other end.

With an SWA where the armour is not being relied on for the earthing arrangements (so 3 core SWA single phase) and the other end is earthed and inspectable.

I take this point, it's a very good one and full of sense. I'd still be reluctant to bury a gland behind plasterboard myself if I could avoid it though. Creature of habit maybe.
 

Reply to Termination of SWA into new style flush Consumer Units in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock