Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Fire Resistive Cable listing dropped by UL -- does this nuke new Article 728?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fairmont, WV, USA
    Posts
    1,679

    Fire Resistive Cable listing dropped by UL -- does this nuke new Article 728?

    UL and ULC announce important changes to certification programs (Release 12PN-51)

    UL has recently conducted research on a wide array of current products and systems originally certified under UL 2196,Tests for Fire Resistive Cables and ULC-S139, Standard Method of Fire Test for Evaluation of Integrity of Electrical Cables and determined that they no longer consistently achieve a two-hour fire-resistive rating when subjected to the standard Fire Endurance Test of UL2196 or ULC-S139. Consequently, UL and ULC will not be able to offer certification to the currently existing program related to these standards.

    As a result, manufacturers are no longer authorized to place the UL mark or ULC mark on the following products:

    UL Classified Fire Resistive Cable (FHJR)
    ULC Listed Fire Resistant Cable (FHJRC)
    UL Listed cable with "-CI" suffix (Circuit Integrity)

    Furthermore, UL has removed from its certification directory all Electrical Circuit Protective Systems constructed with Fire Resistive Cable (FHIT).

    To view the UL Public Notice please visit our public notice page.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    409
    definitely going to change the wiring methods for the fire alarm cabling since the UL listing for CI cable has been pulled.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    25
    The Pyrotenax rep stopped by our office yesterday. We requested a formal clarification of the issue. Here is an excerpt of his formal response:

    Please be advised that UL has completely shut down its certification of fire resistive electrical cables program because of repeated performance failures in test results with the fire rated polymeric cable in conduit systems. So, as it stands now, no electrical cable is able to carry the UL fire rated certification. I hasten to add that Tyco’s MI cable carries additional third party certification as a two hour fire rated cable by Factory Mutual (which, like UL, is recognized by OSHA as a nationally recognized testing lab) and continues to meet and exceed all the requirements of ANSI’s (American National Standards Institute) 2196 two hour fire test standard (RHH/RHW meet neither), so the product remains certified for use in the wiring of emergency feeders/fire pumps and complying with the Commonwealth’s and the NEC requirements for critical circuits.
    If I'm reading this correctly, not only has CIC lost its 2-hour UL listing, but MI as well. This is a huge issue for designers and installers in MA.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    361

    MI Cable

    I've just recently talked to a MI cable rep, MI cable has a FM label does this cover NEC 110.3

  5. #5

    FM approval

    MI cable carried both the UL and Factory Mutual approvals when used in approved systems.
    The decision of whether it is approved for you is based on your AHJ's acceptance of the FM rating.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fairmont, WV, USA
    Posts
    1,679

    MI

    FM is a NRTL

    UL White Book:
    PPKV -- MI cable
    PPYT -- MI fittings

    Neither is dropped by UL.

    PPYT is limited to 90°C dry and 60° wet.

    332.80 Ampacity. The ampacity of Type MI cable shall be
    determined in accordance with 310.15. The conductor temperature
    at the end seal fitting shall not exceed the temperature
    rating of the listed end seal fitting, and the installation
    shall not exceed the temperature ratings of terminations or
    equipment.

    limits the installation of MI to 90° or 60°C as I read it.

    UL has dropped MI-CI, if there ever were such a thing.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    MT Vernon, WA
    Posts
    119
    Well this has resulted in a somewhat humorous situation at our location. The rep that sells this type of cable to us sent an email stating that it met this IEEE test standard and that one. No UL file number and the wording they used was "Industry Compliance".

    Lots of smoke and mirrors- where's the beef?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South of Bawstin
    Posts
    638
    So if the cable that failed the test has been used in the field previously, should it not be recalled?

    Would not the systems in the field with cable thought to have a 2-hour fire rating fail under conditions of the test also?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Washington, DC, USA
    Posts
    1
    Type MI cable is FM specification tested, not FM approved. It has been tested per UL 2196 (the standard that UL yanked), but this does not indicate an approval. Go to approvalguide.com (you will have to register, its free) to find the text.

    UL white book does not indicate anything for fire resistivity (page 295 http://www.ul.com/global/documents/o...WB%20FINAL.pdf)

    I have taken the position that MI cable is not a listed cable for fire resistivity in the US. i have yet to find anyone to convince me otherwise, although many have tried.

    I've spoken with the folk from UL, and the failing occurred with type RHW cable in RGS conduit, not with MI. The failing had to do with the zinc coating on the interior of RGS conduit and the reaction with the RHW. This was the reason for yanking the standard. I know Tyco is currently trying to get MI cable tested and listed separately as a fire resistive cable.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South of Bawstin
    Posts
    638
    UL stated at a meeting I attended recently that the test had been done in the past with only 1 conductor inside a raceway system that didn't have the zinc.

    When they did a test recently with more than 1 conductor in the RGS with ZINC the chemical reaction caused the copper to turn to brass and the cable failed in 30 minutes.

    They said that cable manufactured up to September 2012 with the UL label in the supply chain could still be used in the field and should not be used with raceways with ZINC.

    Anyway...if the copper turned to brass in the test at UL...it also would turn to brass in the field under the conditions of the test...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •