Cable Definition

[infinity]

What is a cable? Would four large conductors twisted together be considered a single cable? If so would this allow you to pull in multiple conductors as one cable and use the 53% fill from chapter 9? Someone mentioned this to me today where they saw it in a trade magazine.

 

[iwire]

I would go by the listing.

 

[petersonra]

I would say no because the NFPA glossary of terms says that a cable is:

A factory assembly of two or more conductors having an
overall covering.

A factory assembly of two or more conductors having an
overall covering.

A conductor formed of a number of wires stranded together.

or

A combination of conductors insulated from one another with
a common covering that is not a cord.

This is not a single conductor so the third definition does not fit and it does not have an overall or common covering so it does not fit the other three definitions.

 

[mjf]

One could infer that the raceway or conduit is a common covering.....but I'm fairly certain that is not the intent.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I would go by the listing.

I don't think it is a listed product, just a value added service that the manufacturer will provide.

 

[petersonra]

I don't think it is a listed product, just a value added service that the manufacturer will provide.

does the code require that cables be listed? or only that certain cables be listed?

I think a good argument could be made that a factory cable assembly made of listed conductors that does have some kind of overall covering might well qualify for the conduit fill the OP mentioned. there is certainly nothing that comes to mind in the code that prohibits it.

 

[GoldDigger]

One of the differences between a small number of conductors versus a single cable is the possibility of jamming/wedging at a bend.
A loosely bound pair or triple of wires in a very flexible and conforming sheath cold jam almost as easily as a comparable standard cable.
I suspect that a test for this specific problem is not part of the listing testing for any cable, but some of the requirements may have the side effect of improving that behavior.
Listed single conductors inside a casual mechanical pulling sheath might not measure up.

 

[Smart $]

does the code require that cables be listed? or only that certain cables be listed?

I think a good argument could be made that a factory cable assembly made of listed conductors that does have some kind of overall covering might well qualify for the conduit fill the OP mentioned. there is certainly nothing that comes to mind in the code that prohibits it.

Code requires use of recognized wiring methods... which includes recognized cable types... which are listed.

That said, cables such as USE triplex would not fit the NFPA definition because it has no overall covering.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

What is a cable? Would four large conductors twisted together be considered a single cable? If so would this allow you to pull in multiple conductors as one cable and use the 53% fill from chapter 9? Someone mentioned this to me today where they saw it in a trade magazine.

Cabling (in the manufacturers world) is just that. Twisting individual conductors together into a specific Length of Lay. If you "cable" 4 THHN's together you have "cabled" them and they would be able to utilize the 53% fill from chapter 9 in my opinion. Note 9 specifically talks about a "multiconductor" cable, manufacturers of wire and cable utilize this specifically. Now, this does not mean it has to have an outer jacket, doing so creates a cable assembly in the eyes again of the manufacturer, but if the conductors are to be used (aka THHN/THWN-2) then they have to be installed in a raceway or cable to complete the application.

A great example of a cable without a jacket is submersible pump cable, it is "cabled" and traditionally not installed inside of a raceway or cable assembly.

Triplex is a cable yet it has no jacket or sheathing, it is twisted "cabled" conductors together to form a cable, if it is constructed into a cable assembly (e.g. AC Cable, MC Cable, TC Cable, Etc) then you do indeed have a cable but its simply a cable assembly. So from a manufacturers viewpoint the cabling of conductors for use in a cable assembly does not lessen the fact the twisting of conductors listed under 310.104 would be a cable and could use Note 9 of Table 1 accordingly.

In fact, you can buy pre-cabled conductors, on a large reel for installation in raceways everyday of the week and those pre-twisted, and in most cases pre-lubricated will have a better COE, SWP than pulling individual conductors that are subject to jam if not figured properly.

You can agree to disagree, I am simply bringing you the manufacturers view point on the term "Cabling" and "Cable". The fact we twist it (Lenth of Lay within the TOI specifications) does not remove the fact that it has to be placed in a raceway or cable (in most all cases) for protection. Every manufacturer of wire or cable will supply you with any length you wish of cabled inners, pre-lubricated, reeled and ready for installation and I believe they all consider it a "cable", just not yet a cable assembly if it is being processed to go into an MC or AC Cable Assembly.

Also here is an except from the McGraw Electrical Trade Directory that most of the manufacturers go by.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Cabling (in the manufacturers world) is just that. Twisting individual conductors together into a specific Length of Lay. ...

It really doesn't matter what the trade or the manufacturers call a cable, or even what the definition you cited says...The NFPA glossary over rules all of those, and a set of twisted conductors is not a cable per the glossary as posted by Bob in post #3.

Cable vs conductor(s) has been a long term issue in the NEC, maybe someone took a crack at it in the "public input" process.

 

[infinity]

I found the cable is question it's from a company called Service Wire Co. Their ad in Electrical contractor magazine states that:

...because the conductors are tightly twisted together, ServicePlex pulls like a single cable, with uniform pulling tension and allows for an increase in conduit fill-53% compared to 40% for paralleling.

This seems like a good alternative for when you ran a conduit that was slightly too small for the 40% fill. I wonder if inspectors would accept that this is actually a cable.


http://www.servicewire.com/downloads/ServiceWirePressRelease_ServicePlex_WEB.pdf

 

[MasterTheNEC]

It really doesn't matter what the trade or the manufacturers call a cable, or even what the definition you cited says...The NFPA glossary over rules all of those, and a set of twisted conductors is not a cable per the glossary as posted by Bob in post #3.

Cable vs conductor(s) has been a long term issue in the NEC, maybe someone took a crack at it in the "public input" process.

Well we can agree to disagree...and we wills till make it, it will still be used and it will still be treated like a cable. You are free to reject the installation....

 

[MasterTheNEC]

I found the cable is question it's from a company called Service Wire Co. Their ad in Electrical contractor magazine states that:

This seems like a good alternative for when you ran a conduit that was slightly too small for the 40% fill. I wonder if inspectors would accept that this is actually a cable.


http://www.servicewire.com/downloads/ServiceWirePressRelease_ServicePlex_WEB.pdf

Yes, now I did not say all manufactures do it and promote it as such but it's done and it does have alternatives to an installation. Now I have personal opinions about it...but will tote the company line.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

I would say no because the NFPA glossary of terms says that a cable is:







or



This is not a single conductor so the third definition does not fit and it does not have an overall or common covering so it does not fit the other three definitions.

"A combination of conductors insulated from one another with
a common covering that is not a cord."

if I place (4) THHN/THWN-2 together...are they not insulated from one another with a common THHN/THWN-2 w/ nylon covering? If you are talking about a jacket or the like...how does it insulate the conductors from one another?...they are all under the same jacket are they not?...maybe we are just playing on words...

anyway we do not currently promote the product as a single cable, but I see someone did find the company that is promoting that way. To each his own, but in literal terms I have to tell you most manufacturers think the sheathing or jacket is pointless in the definition. Thats a call the local AHJ can make, wire will continue to be produced and it requested that it be cabled then it will be done and shipped

 

[GoldDigger]

You are misreading the text. The conductors are insulated from each other and they have a common covering. The covering is not necessarily even qualified as an insulator. Other references to covered wire versus insulated wire make that clear.
The reference to insulated from each other makes it clear (in case anybody tries to go wild) that a stranded wire (also multiple conductors) with an outer covering does not constitute a multiconductor cable.
You are interpreting the text as if it said "by" an outer covering, not "with" that outer covering.

 

[Smart $]

I found the cable is question it's from a company called Service Wire Co. Their ad in Electrical contractor magazine states that:

This seems like a good alternative for when you ran a conduit that was slightly too small for the 40% fill. I wonder if inspectors would accept that this is actually a cable.


http://www.servicewire.com/downloads/ServiceWirePressRelease_ServicePlex_WEB.pdf

Still, the problem is the type you depict is not a listed cable, and more importantly, not recognized as a cable under the NEC. Even though the manufacturer calls it twisted cable, under the NEC it's just twisted XHHW-2 conductors.

Now if you go with the USE-2 version, it is UL 854 listed as Service-Entrance Cable and a recognized cable under the NEC. See page linked below and spec' sheets for each type.

http://www.servicewire.com/serviceplex-v2.php

 

[MasterTheNEC]

You are misreading the text. The conductors are insulated from each other and they have a common covering. The covering is not necessarily even qualified as an insulator. Other references to covered wire versus insulated wire make that clear.
The reference to insulated from each other makes it clear (in case anybody tries to go wild) that a stranded wire (also multiple conductors) with an outer covering does not constitute a multiconductor cable.
You are interpreting the text as if it said "by" an outer covering, not "with" that outer covering.

No, I am interpreting the text the way the manufacturer chooses to read it and apply it. We will let other enforce it as they wish.:angel:

Pointless....I suggest picking up a copy of UL 44 and UL 83 and so on and read the parts about multi-conductor cables. However, to each his own. Trust me regardless of what you believe the manufacturers and testing authorities believe differently. What is ironic is that if you place a jacket on it you would permit 53% but without the 15 mils you would not....quite interesting.

Talk about digging in the weeds.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

http://www.southwire.com/ProductCatalog/XTEInterfaceServlet?contentKey=prodcatsheet380


So are you saying this Submersible Pump Cable...is...well....Not a Cable?

Hmmm....seems like individual conductors twisted in accordance with UL Whitebook ZKST or ZLGR say it fairly clear. In fact, look at ZLGR which says " Indicates multiconductor cable consisting of two or more flat or two to six twisted insulated conductors with or without an overall jacket."

Hmmm.....simply amazing....people would again argue over 15 mils of jacket in order to say the NEC does not permit it as a cable and not be able to utilize note 9 of Table 1. What is also ironic is that these are the same people who GRIPE when an inspector is less than flexible on their interpretation and turn them down....

Classic....

 

[Smart $]

...
Pointless...

...simply amazing...

It doesn't matter what manufacturers or UL call or define the products as. In order to comply with fill requirements for raceways using a cable, the cable must be recognized by the NEC. There is no getting around this except by specific approval of the AHJ.

 

[MasterTheNEC]

It doesn't matter what manufacturers or UL call or define the products as. In order to comply with fill requirements for raceways using a cable, the cable must be recognized by the NEC. There is no getting around this except by specific approval of the AHJ.

Ok indulge me...show me in the NEC your supporting statement. And you really do believe the 15 mils is worth a red tag?...making it a "Cable" in your view. So you are saying I am not able to install Submersible Pump Cable as shown above.

I need to know as I have a pump I need wiring and I want to use this......oh wait you are saying its ok just at 40%....nevermind.

Oh wait...i'm wrong....ok enforce it as you wish...but service wire needs a codes and standards guy since theirs obviously is a sleep at the wheel and they seem to be selling something you claim is not compliant. It behoves you to let them know their errors of their ways....:angel: