overhead triplex

[olly]

I have always seen a splice right at the weather head. From the utility wire to the customers wire which is usually copper. Does anyone know if you can run ASCR (aluminum conductor steel reinforced) tri plex down a riser and land it in the meter?

I ask because I am coming back out of the disconnect and running over head to another panal and dont really want to have to spilce on to go down the riser?

 

[iwire]

I don't know of any code that specifically prohibits it.

However I do wonder a couple of things.

How are you leaving a disconnect to feed another panel with 3 wire?

Is the triplex you are using a listed?

 

[olly]

im actually using quad plex. I will mark one of the phases white where it terminates is that ok?

 

[PetrosA]

As soon as you put a triplex or quadplex in a conduit of any type, it will then be undersized for its load. They can be so much smaller than the service entrance they feed only because they're run in free air with the cooling that affords. Don't do it.

 

[electrofelon]

I have always seen a splice right at the weather head. From the utility wire to the customers wire which is usually copper. Does anyone know if you can run ASCR (aluminum conductor steel reinforced) tri plex down a riser and land it in the meter?

I ask because I am coming back out of the disconnect and running over head to another panal and dont really want to have to spilce on to go down the riser?

I am not clear on what you are doing. What does coming back out of the disconnect regardless of how or where to have to do with not wanting a splice at the weather head? What is going on that you are rearranging the service drop so much? Is this a meter/disconnect combo with two risers, one for the service entrance conductors and one for the feeder?

 

[iwire]

As soon as you put a triplex or quadplex in a conduit of any type, it will then be undersized for its load. They can be so much smaller than the service entrance they feed only because they're run in free air with the cooling that affords. Don't do it.

If you size it per the normal ampacity table that is a non-issue.

 

[mivey]

Is the triplex you are using a listed?

I think that will be the stickler. For this type install, the NESC normally stops at the weather-head (with the metering exception beyond of course).

 

[iwire]

I think that will be the stickler.

For sure, if you are really going for NEC code compliance finding listed triplex / quadplex for over head use is difficult if not imposable.

 

[PetrosA]

If you size it per the normal ampacity table that is a non-issue.

I checked after I wrote that yesterday and you're right. I think I had individual conductor in free air in mind, or was working with common POCO sizes in mind where you often see a 2 AWG triplex feeding a 200A service. Either way, I was wrong. :dunce:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It is my opinion that the triplex or quadplex is an "Other factory-assembled, multiconductor control, signal, or power cables that are identified for the use". This working is from Table 396.10(A) and stops short of requiring the use of a listed product.

 

[augie47]

It is my opinion that the triplex or quadplex is an "Other factory-assembled, multiconductor control, signal, or power cables that are identified for the use". This working is from Table 396.10(A) and stops short of requiring the use of a listed product.

Interesting !!! I always allowed it for messenger supported wiring, but could only now justify that decision . Thanks.
In regard to the OP, do you agree that unless one can find a "listed" tri/quad, it would not be allowed in a riser ?

 

[Volta]

...
I ask because I am coming back out of the disconnect and running over head to another panal and dont really want to have to spilce on to go down the riser?

I can't tell what you are trying to do exactly, but from this description it seems right to remind you that service and feeder conductors cannot be in the same riser per 230.7.

 

[iwire]

It is my opinion that the triplex or quadplex is an "Other factory-assembled, multiconductor control, signal, or power cables that are identified for the use". This working is from Table 396.10(A) and stops short of requiring the use of a listed product.

I don't see anything in 310.10(C) or (D) that would allow the use of typical quadplex labelled only XLPE.

Perhaps it should have 'unless allowed by other sections of this code' added to it.

 

[mivey]

I don't see anything in 310.10(C) or (D) that would allow the use of typical quadplex labelled only XLPE.

Perhaps it should have 'unless allowed by other sections of this code' added to it.

I believe you have pointed out 310.120 as well in the past.

 

[kwired]

I can't tell what you are trying to do exactly, but from this description it seems right to remind you that service and feeder conductors cannot be in the same riser per 230.7.

I was going to ask how he was going to get around that one myself.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Interesting !!! I always allowed it for messenger supported wiring, but could only now justify that decision . Thanks.
In regard to the OP, do you agree that unless one can find a "listed" tri/quad, it would not be allowed in a riser ?

I don't think it would be permitted in the riser, listed or not.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I don't see anything in 310.10(C) or (D) that would allow the use of typical quadplex labelled only XLPE.

Perhaps it should have 'unless allowed by other sections of this code' added to it.

Per the scope statement, Article 310 applies to conductors, not cable assemblies. It you want to apply it to cable assemblies, then we eliminate NM (which would be fine with me)

 

[iwire]

Per the scope statement, Article 310 applies to conductors, not cable assemblies. It you want to apply it to cable assemblies, then we eliminate NM (which would be fine with me)

So the ampacity tables contained in 310 do not apply to cables?

Cool, time to stock up on 14 AWG cables.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

So the ampacity tables contained in 310 do not apply to cables?

Cool, time to stock up on 14 AWG cables.

They attempted to address that within the titles of the ampacity tables..."not more than 3 current carrying conductors in a raceway or cable", but based on the scope statement none of the rules in 310 that talk about cables are valid.

 

[iwire]

They attempted to address that within the titles of the ampacity tables..."not more than 3 current carrying conductors in a raceway or cable", but based on the scope statement none of the rules in 310 that talk about cables are valid.

But lets live in the real world and in the real world 310 applies to cables.