Earths need individual sleeves?

[OscarLomax]

Hi, easy question for you pros -

Spark has wired up some grid switches with multiple earth conductors in a single sleeve. Is that ok? There's quite a few earths so I reckon he's done it to hold them all together out of the way. Looks a bit shoddy where the earths initially gather together to enter the sleeve as there's short sections of earth wire that aren't sleeved.

Bad practice or against regs? Or just me being picky?

Thanks,

Osc.

 

[OwainDIYer]

Very strictly speaking each earth should be individually sleeved but in a crowded switchbox that is not always easy ... the neat way is to use a short length of thin sleeving on each earth from the cable until they bunch together, then a fatter sleeve on the group. (Or heatshrink.)

 

[sparkwright]

Bad practice, and a bugger when it comes to fault finding.

Also makes it hard to see if any wires have broken off at the earth terminal.

Each wire should be individually sleeved ideally.

 

[JohnW2]

Very strictly speaking each earth should be individually sleeved but in a crowded switchbox that is not always easy ... the neat way is to use a short length of thin sleeving on each earth from the cable until they bunch together, then a fatter sleeve on the group. (Or heatshrink.)

I agree with you and sparkwright that, ideally, they should be sleeved separately, and I also agree with sparkwright that to do otherwise frustrates testing (even more so if, per your final comment, one used {shrunk} heat-shrink).

However, if one does decide to bunch them, then, provided that there is no risk of bare bits of CPC touching anything else, I'm not convinced that there is actually a regulatory requirement for a CPC to be 'fully insulated', so short bare bits from the cable to where the bunching (and sleeving) started would probably not be non-compliant with regs (which, as far as I am aware, merely require the CPC to be 'identified' by sleeving, not necessarily 'totally insulated' by sleeving) - but maybe I'm wrong!

Kind Regards, John

 

[OscarLomax]

Thanks for the replies. I think I'll see if he fancies doing them again!

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Lectrician]

Its fine, and common practice. You don't need to separate earths when fault finding. Earth is earth. Leave it be.

 

[chivers67]

It's not normally something I'd do but if it makes it easier to connect up inside the Grid then can't see a problem. I really can't understand why Earths don't have insulation these days.

 

[JohnW2]

I really can't understand why Earths don't have insulation these days.

I can think of at least two reasons. For a start, that would presumably result in a 50% increase in insulation-related costs. However, it can also be argued that it is marginally 'safer' to have a bare CPC, since, for example, it increases the probability that something penetrating the cable and coming into contact with the L conductor will also come in contact with the CPC, thereby causing a protective device to operate.

Kind Regards, John

 

[chivers67]

The second point is very valid JW.

 

[JohnW2]

You don't need to separate earths when fault finding. Earth is earth.

"Earth is earth" except when there is a CPC discontinuity. Albeit rare, if one were fault-finding that, one would probably have to disconnect (and 'separate') some earths.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Lectrician]

"Earth is earth" except when there is a CPC discontinuity. Albeit rare, if one were fault-finding that, one would probably have to disconnect (and 'separate') some earths.

Kind Regards, John

Really? Why? Think about it.

 

[JohnW2]

Really? Why? Think about it.

Maybe I'm not thinking deeply enough. If, for some reason (maybe Zs) one suspected that some part of the CPC ring of a ring final was broken (although a connection to earth was available from every socket, by virtue of the 'redundancy'), I would have thought that the easiest ways of locating the break would involve disconnecting some CPCs, wouldn't it?

As for the 'joint sleeving' of multiple CPCs, FWIW I do it frequently!

Kind Regards, John

 

[John D v2.0]

The second point is very valid JW.

I was just thinking the first was the most valid! Most work is done to a price, so cheapest wins.

 

[JohnW2]

I was just thinking the first was the most valid! Most work is done to a price, so cheapest wins.

Indeed, but if the cheaper option also arguably affords a bit more safety, it's essentially a no-brainer. We're far more used to situations in which cost-cutting potentially compromises 'safety'.

Kind Regards, John