Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Cable Seals 501.15(E)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    265
    Thanks Bob -- looks like TC may be the best option.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Placerville, CA, USA
    Posts
    18,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    501.15(E) Exception seems to lend any support for using MC-HL vs MC in Division 2.
    “cables with an unbroken gas/vaportight continuous sheath shall be permitted to pass through a Division 2 location without seals”.



    Note the very large difference between passing (unbroken) through a Div 2 and originating or terminating there.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldDigger View Post
    Note the very large difference between passing (unbroken) through a Div 2 and originating or terminating there.

    Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
    It's analogous to several other Exceptions for conduits in Section 501.15, such as 501.15(A)(4) Ex. No.1[Division 1] and (B)(2) Ex. No.1. [Division 2].
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    265

    501.15(D)(1)

    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    It's analogous to several other Exceptions for conduits in Section 501.15, such as 501.15(A)(4) Ex. No.1[Division 1] and (B)(2) Ex. No.1. [Division 2].
    Bob, can you confirm the following statements - CID1, Gps C & D:
    • MC-HL cable entering enclosure that is explosionproof and factory sealed (such as C-H EDS series) cable end must be sealed, i.e. C-H TMCX or equal cable gland.
    • MC-HL cable entering enclosure, that is explosionproof with no arcing device such as motor termination box, cable end must be sealed, i.e. C-H TMCX or equal cable gland.
    • Rigid metal conduit entering explosionproof, factory sealed device with TC-ER cable routed within conduit, no conduit seal is required and cable within conduit does not have to be sealed.


    Thanks in advance,
    Dale

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    Bob, can you confirm the following statements - CID1, Gps C & D:
    • MC-HL cable entering enclosure that is explosionproof and factory sealed (such as C-H EDS series) cable end must be sealed, i.e. C-H TMCX or equal cable gland.
    • MC-HL cable entering enclosure, that is explosionproof with no arcing device such as motor termination box, cable end must be sealed, i.e. C-H TMCX or equal cable gland.
    • Rigid metal conduit entering explosionproof, factory sealed device with TC-ER cable routed within conduit, no conduit seal is required and cable within conduit does not have to be sealed.


    Thanks in advance,
    Dale
    The first sentence of Subsection 501.15(D)(1) states the "where" all cables must be sealed. It makes no distinction about the Type of enclosure or its features or the Type of cable itself. The rest of Subsection 501.15(D) and subsequent Subsections, including the Exceptions, deal with the "how" for sealing various Types of cables and their constructions and enclosure features don't matter much within the context of Class I, Division 1; i.e., cables still must be sealed at the terminations.

    That said, the first two bullets are fine. The third bullet is problematic since Type TC (of any kind) must still be sealed at the terminations. It is permitted to omit boundary seals for Type TC and other constructions but not the conduit.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    The first sentence of Subsection 501.15(D)(1) states the "where" all cables must be sealed. It makes no distinction about the Type of enclosure or its features or the Type of cable itself. The rest of Subsection 501.15(D) and subsequent Subsections, including the Exceptions, deal with the "how" for sealing various Types of cables and their constructions and enclosure features don't matter much within the context of Class I, Division 1; i.e., cables still must be sealed at the terminations.

    That said, the first two bullets are fine. The third bullet is problematic since Type TC (of any kind) must still be sealed at the terminations. It is permitted to omit boundary seals for Type TC and other constructions but not the conduit.
    Third Bullet: Ok, so CID1, TC cable ends still needs to be sealed at the Factory Sealed enclosure - fine. This basically brings me right back to installing a conduit seal, i.e. C-H EYD at the control station - correct?
    If the cable were single conductors instead of TC, could the seal then be omitted per Article 501.15(A)(1) Exception b?

    Also if it were CID2, same scenario, I assume TC cable would NOT have to be sealed at the termination for the Factory Sealed device?

    Thanks again, in advance.
    Dale

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    Third Bullet: Ok, so CID1, TC cable ends still needs to be sealed at the Factory Sealed enclosure - fine. This basically brings me right back to installing a conduit seal, i.e. C-H EYD at the control station - correct?
    If the cable were single conductors instead of TC, could the seal then be omitted per Article 501.15(A)(1) Exception b?

    Also if it were CID2, same scenario, I assume TC cable would NOT have to be sealed at the termination for the Factory Sealed device?

    Thanks again, in advance.
    Dale
    Note the first sentence of Subsection 501.15(D)(1) says nothing about single nor multiconductor tables. To be genuinely horrified read Section 501.15 Informational Note No. 2. Be grateful there's no enforceable language.

    This was a topic of some discussion some years back. It was considered by several CMP14 members that simply sealing the end of a multiconductor cable with a mastic filled heatshrink tube would be “suitable” [500.8(A)]and a factory sealed device wouldn’t require an external conduit seal. In fact,we had discussions with most of the major heatshrink manufacturers and were assured there would be no problem making such a product. The NRTLs were a bit concerned about the product testing though and we weren’t quite able to agree on wording either

    Ultimately, we wimped out and said it wasn’t too common a practice to use multiconductor cables in conduit in Division 1. That is generally true for power, less so for instrumentation; nevertheless, it was dropped.

    As for revising bullet three for a Class I, Division 2 application, you are correct.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    Note the first sentence of Subsection 501.15(D)(1) says nothing about single nor multiconductor tables. To be genuinely horrified read Section 501.15 Informational Note No. 2. Be grateful there's no enforceable language.

    This was a topic of some discussion some years back. It was considered by several CMP14 members that simply sealing the end of a multiconductor cable with a mastic filled heatshrink tube would be “suitable” [500.8(A)]and a factory sealed device wouldn’t require an external conduit seal. In fact,we had discussions with most of the major heatshrink manufacturers and were assured there would be no problem making such a product. The NRTLs were a bit concerned about the product testing though and we weren’t quite able to agree on wording either

    Ultimately, we wimped out and said it wasn’t too common a practice to use multiconductor cables in conduit in Division 1. That is generally true for power, less so for instrumentation; nevertheless, it was dropped.

    As for revising bullet three for a Class I, Division 2 application, you are correct.
    They've routed TC-ER into sump pits (CID1) via rigid aluminum conduit; placed boundary seals correctly, but failed to seal the cable ends per 501.15(D)(1), (i.e.using conduit seals), at the control stations AND the motor termination boxes.
    Really appreciate the feedback.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    Note the first sentence of Subsection 501.15(D)(1) says nothing about single nor multiconductor tables. To be genuinely horrified read Section 501.15 Informational Note No. 2. Be grateful there's no enforceable language.

    This was a topic of some discussion some years back. It was considered by several CMP14 members that simply sealing the end of a multiconductor cable with a mastic filled heatshrink tube would be “suitable” [500.8(A)]and a factory sealed device wouldn’t require an external conduit seal. In fact,we had discussions with most of the major heatshrink manufacturers and were assured there would be no problem making such a product. The NRTLs were a bit concerned about the product testing though and we weren’t quite able to agree on wording either

    Ultimately, we wimped out and said it wasn’t too common a practice to use multiconductor cables in conduit in Division 1. That is generally true for power, less so for instrumentation; nevertheless, it was dropped.

    As for revising bullet three for a Class I, Division 2 application, you are correct.
    Art 501.15(A)(1) Exceptions a-b, lead you to believe conduit seals can be omitted. But when you look at 501.15(D) - especially when routing TC cable in conduit - you're right back to installing the conduit seal regardless, AND there doesn't seem to be any cross-referencing between the two Articles. Is it just me, or is this an area of the code that deserves clarification on the next cycle?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    4,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    Art 501.15(A)(1) Exceptions a-b, lead you to believe conduit seals can be omitted. But when you look at 501.15(D) - especially when routing TC cable in conduit - you're right back to installing the conduit seal regardless, AND there doesn't seem to be any cross-referencing between the two Articles. Is it just me, or is this an area of the code that deserves clarification on the next cycle?
    So make a Public Input. You're running out of time though.
    Last edited by rbalex; 08-30-17 at 03:05 AM. Reason: Added link to NFPA Public Input.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

Posting Permissions

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