MC connector

[al hildenbrand]

The code was not created to deal with a brand device.

:?
Armored Grounding Wire, KDER, is NOT a "brand device".

 

[Brian Dang]

Al,

Do you have a datasheet showing the Armored Grounding Wire already have each end of the armor bonded to the inside copper conductor, or the armor is not ferrous metal? If not then it's just a GEC inside a ferrous enclosure.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al,

Do you have a datasheet showing the Armored Grounding Wire already have each end of the armor bonded to the inside copper conductor, or the armor is not ferrous metal? If not then it's just a GEC inside a ferrous enclosure.

Grasping at straws. Did you go to 110.28 and to Table 110.28?

You are making up your own definitions.

 

[GoldDigger]

Al,

Do you have a datasheet showing the Armored Grounding Wire already have each end of the armor bonded to the inside copper conductor, or the armor is not ferrous metal? If not then it's just a GEC inside a ferrous enclosure.

Brian, can you not accept the fact that, under the UL product description the KDER is armored wire, not cable with armor? It is a different category and may therefore be treated differently. Now if the wire inside the armor were insulated (i.e. if the product were in fact cable) then I might reach a different conclusion.

 

[Brian Dang]

Brian, can you not accept the fact that, under the UL product description the KDER is armored wire, not cable with armor? It is a different category and may therefore be treated differently. Now if the wire inside the armor were insulated (i.e. if the product were in fact cable) then I might reach a different conclusion.

I'm not trying to argue with anyone here. I'm here to learn and to share. I could be total wrong, but the code below was not talking about cable with armor. I read it as a special enclosure to house the GEC inside. If not, what exactly the "cable armor" the code talking about?

From NEC 2011, 250.64 Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation.
“ it shall be protected in rigid metal conduit (RMC), intermediate metal conduit, (IMC) rigid polyvinyl conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic tubing (EMT), or cable armor.”

 

[al hildenbrand]

If not, what exactly is the "cable armor" the code talking about?

"Armored Cable," type AC, has been in the NEC since the 1913 edition.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Over the decades since 1913, the NEC has a long history of using the two-word term, Cable Armor, in rules about how to treat the spiral wound metal outer covering of the two, or more, insulated conductors within the manufactured cable known an Armored Cable.

The advent of additional NEC Chapter 3 Wiring Methods that are "cable" with an overall armor covering, such as, but not limited to, metal clad cable, have appeared and stayed. The two-word term, Cable Armor, also applies to them.

 

[Brian Dang]

"Armored Cable," type AC, has been in the NEC since the 1913 edition.

"Armored cable" is not what 250.64 referring to. The code talks about the spiral wound steel sleeve part alone as a flexible steel conduit, not a whole armor cable in AC class. Why do you think 250.64 talks about AC class armored cable in the GEC context?

 

[Brian Dang]

Brian, can you not accept the fact that, under the UL product description the KDER is armored wire, not cable with armor? It is a different category and may therefore be treated differently. Now if the wire inside the armor were insulated (i.e. if the product were in fact cable) then I might reach a different conclusion.

I do, and I know KDER armored grounding wire is a total different thing for different purpose than armored cable. I also think the OP was using an armored grounding wire but failed to bond the steel armor sleeve properly per AHJ. Am I wrong?

 

[al hildenbrand]

If not, what exactly is the "cable armor" the code talking about?

"Armored cable" is not what 250.64 referring to. The code talks about the spiral wound steel sleeve part alone as a flexible steel conduit, not a whole armor cable in AC class.

Please, understand the historical use of the two-word term, "cable armor".

From Post # 47

Over the decades since 1913, the NEC has a long history of using the two-word term, Cable Armor, in rules about how to treat the spiral wound metal outer covering of the two, or more, insulated conductors within the manufactured cable known an Armored Cable.

You need to apply Charlie's Rule, along with the definitions. I'm now going to quote the IEEE 100: The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms seventh edition (as the seventh is the most recent that I have on my bookshelf.)

cable armor A metallic element or envelope inserted in or around a cable sheath to provide mechanical protection against rodents, severe installation conditions, etc.

Remember: The NFPA Glossary of Terms (read it for yourself by clicking this LINK) defines "Cable" for the NEC as "A factory assembly of two or more conductors having an overall covering."

These last two definitions show that Armored Grounding Wire, KDER, is NOT cable. These last two definitions also show that Cable Armor is "in or around a cable sheath", and in no way names Armored Grounding Wire, KDER.

Finally, for your edification:

Charlie's Rule of Technical Reading

It doesn't say what you think it says, nor what you remember it to have said, nor what you were told that it says, and certainly not what you want it to say, and if by chance you are its author, it doesn't say what you intended it to say. Then what does it say? It says what it says. So if you want to know what it says, stop trying to remember what it says, and don't ask anyone else. Go back and read it, and pay attention as though you were reading it for the first time.

Copyright 2005, Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle, WA

You ask:

Why do you think 250.64 talks about AC class armored cable in the GEC context?

As I show above, 250.64 only talks about "cable armor" and it does not talk about "single wire armor". This is old settled Code and a product (Armored Grounding Wire, KDER) that is manufactured as grounding and bonding equipment. It is not an error that the Code is silent, in my opinion.

 

[al hildenbrand]

I also think the OP was using an armored grounding wire but failed to bond the steel armor sleeve properly per AHJ. Am I wrong?

I always used MC connectors to connect my armored ground. I used the snap in MC connector. AHJ said it was not properly bonded with that connector, this job was a service change for a solar array, Solar Company drove a ground rod by there disconnect on the other side of house and used a Romex connector with a ground bushing to bond there armored ground and that was properly bonding the MC according to the inspector, I have used Romex connectors on MC but never if the inspector can see it and only has a last resort, My GEC is water then to ground rod #4 it's about a 50 foot run. Does anybody know of a way I can bond the mc

In my opinion, the inspector approved the assembly with a Romex Connector. . .with a ground bushing. I'd have to see a photo of that or get more description to understand what the actual inspector saw and accepted. I highly doubt that the actual romex connector, alone, is listed for use with Armored Grounding Wire, KDER.

First off, the OP is wrongly trying to apply Article 330 Metal-Clad Cable (Type MC) rules to Armored Grounding Wire, KDER.

Iwire (Bob) provided a link to an Appleton 7287V 1/2" Straight Box Connector that, in fact, is listed for use with Armored Grounding Wire, KDER. Listed hardware for the armor termination at an enclosure is available.

But Hbiss (Hal) rightly raised the point that, due to the product classification and listing, the armor of Armored Grounding Wire doesn't, by Code, actually require special treatment. Because of the intimate continuous contact of armor and bare wire AND that the whole assembly of armor and wire together is grounding and bonding equipment, no NEC rules are written as there is no effective choke effect.

 

[al hildenbrand]

From Post # 29 of the Continuous thread:

I don't have NEC book.

I now understand why we have had the confusing discussion. You've got some homework to do.

As an electrical engineer I understand the allure of the theoretical knowledge. As a working hands-on-the-tools licensed Master electrician I know the value of legal standards that regulate the bit of hardware that I add to an assembly. As both, I know the continual need to be reminded of the basic definition of each and every term, whether single or multiword, that I use.

In my estimation, the learning curve of the electrical world, while having a varying slope, is ALWAYS upwards.

 

[Brian Dang]

Al,

All of the works I had done I should be able to back them up with calculations, product datasheets, industry publications or physics laws if anyone, AHJ included, ever question about their safety, performance, and function. I had asked numerous times for any datasheet, Application Note, or any document that to show the said armored ground wire is approved to be used for GEC without the needs to bond its steel armor ends to the enclosed conductor, or how to install it correctly. Listed under Grounding and Bonding Equipment, KDER, doesn’t mean the product when installed incorrectly and still can be code compliant. How would you install it for earth grounding a Service Panel, if you don’t mind to share?

 

[al hildenbrand]

How would you install it for earth grounding a Service Panel, if you don’t mind to share?

"Earth grounding" is not defined in the NEC, or related standards.

I choose to get Physical Protection in other ways for my Grounding Electrode Conductor and bonding conductors.

As Peter notes for his area, my area also has next to no armored grounding wire in use.

Because of the lack of common usage I would err on entering an enclosure through a listed connector where exposed outside of a structure, but on the interior and a Service Disconnecting Means, where no physical protection is a Code rule, I'd run it as a bare conductor. I'd just as soon as not pick a skirmish with my local inspectors (I've got a lot of 'em), for his/her lack of familiarity, . . .and would also be inclined to inquire ahead of the actual use.

 

[Brian Dang]

my area also has next to no armored grounding wire in use.
Because of the lack of common usage I would err on entering an enclosure through a listed connector where exposed outside of a structure, but on the interior and a Service Disconnecting Means, where no physical protection is a Code rule, I'd run it as a bare conductor.

Thank you for sharing. What you did might be OK with your local regulation, but it might not meet the National Electrical Code at other locals. If a contractor hired you to install the GEC from a Service panel to a water pipe ground electrode with physical protection required for the GEC, inside a building, what would you do?

 

[Brian Dang]

I forgot to say using armored ground wire for GEC.

 

[al hildenbrand]

The "contractor" specifying my wiring method is rarer than armored grounding wire. Your hypothetical is not remotely realistic.​

You, I believe, are asking me would I bond the armor to the bare wire at both ends. I've shown you my answer in this thread countless times, it feels like. The armored grounding wire is grounding and bonding equipment. Period. It is not cable, therefore it does not have cable armor. The NEC is silent about doing ANY bonding of the armor to the wire, Period.

In the interest of collegiality, and because of the rareness of the material in my geographic area, I will check with my local inspector ahead of time. If my local inspector disagrees, I will provide White Book documentation and NEC citations and talk further, and with his/her boss if needed. Everybody gets to learn, including me.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Al,

All of the works I had done I should be able to back them up with calculations, product datasheets, industry publications or physics laws if anyone, AHJ included, ever question about their safety, performance, and function. I had asked numerous times for any datasheet, Application Note, or any document that to show the said armored ground wire is approved to be used for GEC without the needs to bond its steel armor ends to the enclosed conductor, or how to install it correctly. Listed under Grounding and Bonding Equipment, KDER, doesn’t mean the product when installed incorrectly and still can be code compliant. How would you install it for earth grounding a Service Panel, if you don’t mind to share?

What you did might be OK with your local regulation, but it might not meet the National Electrical Code at other locals.

The NEC is the same nationwide. Period. Local ordinance may alter the contents of the NEC. Minnesota adopts into statute the unaltered entirety of the NEC, every edition, with extremely rare exception.

Now, maybe you are going to try to spin "industry publications" to construe legal ordinance based on regulatory standards. . . but really, Brian, in this thread you have shown a disregard for such, or, at minimum, a disconnection from such. Your attempts to interpret the Code in spite of fundamental definitions of the terms in our thread, in favor of theoretical physics, discredit you and your perspective. Theoretical correctness accounts for only a part of what is required to assemble equipment that complies with the written word of the legally enforceable Code and other nationally established and recognized standards.

If you, as an electrical engineer with a four year, or more, degree, were to apply to Minnesota for a Class "A" Master electrician license (the most potent electrical license in Minnesota), by virtue of your degree, you would be given permission to sit for the exam. You would be issued a Master license upon passing the test. The test is only 1/3 theory. It is 1/3 on the terms and passages of the actual NEC, and it is 1/3 on the mechanical assembly of things that provide for power and light. If you can't "speak NEC" and if you can't answer accurately questions about mechanical procedure, you will fail the test.

The takeaway: Theory only gives you less than passing marks.

 

[Strathead]

Sorry bout the confusion it is metallic cable with with 1 # 6 solid copper wire, I talked to Arlington, they said not only is there MC box connectors, But any manufacturers MC connectors have to be UL listed for 514.B tested for bonding and grounding thanks for the input

Don't know about any of the rest of it, but this post right here tells me the inspector is looking for MC connectors that are listed MCI-A for HCF cable. Not all Arlington connectors carry this listing. One would think the MC would also be required to carry the HCF listing for 514 as well.

 

[Brian Dang]

The takeaway: Theory only gives you less than passing marks.

I total agreed