Inspectors, accept or no?

[hardworkingstiff]

Using mining cable and terminating on lugs on breakers, if I was to submit this document
http://static.schneider-electric.us/docs/Circuit Protection/0515DB0301.pdf
which in part says

A solution to these problems is to use sleeves, around the strands of thewire. Conductor sleeves are defined, as any moderately thin copper shim
stock material (3/1000 to 20/1000 thick) that, when wrapped around the
exposed conductor surface, will contain the wire strands as a single
compact mass.

Would you accept me wrapping this product (cut to size of course) around the fine stranded cable before terminating?

If not, what additional information could get you to allow this?

It is a very cost effective way to terminate these fine stranded cables.

 

[Ragin Cajun]

Interesting.

I just specified DLO cable and required DLO listed hydralic crimp lugs. Not sure I would do anything different knowing SquareD's method. IMHO, the "slieve" method leaves too much to "skill".

RC

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Is that product listed for fine strands? Is it listed at all?

 

[hardworkingstiff]

Interesting.

I just specified DLO cable and required DLO listed hydralic crimp lugs. Not sure I would do anything different knowing SquareD's method. IMHO, the "slieve" method leaves too much to "skill".

RC

Aren't we supposed to be "skilled" workers? :lol:

 

[kwired]

Listing is what most will likely question.

That may include questioning if it does need to be listed.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

Listing is what most will likely question.

That may include questioning if it does need to be listed.

What do we use to determine if it needs to be listed or not?

Since SQ D put out the methodology in their article, does that carry any clout for the argument that it should be allowed?

 

[jim dungar]

That publication mentions using fine stranded wire in 'control panels', where additional Listing inspections are probably performed, it does not say this method would be acceptable for field wiring that needs to meet the NEC.

It aslo says that samples were tested on their products and their lugs. I see no reason that an AHJ could not use this information for determing the suitability of this method in other applications.

 

[kwired]

What do we use to determine if it needs to be listed or not?

Since SQ D put out the methodology in their article, does that carry any clout for the argument that it should be allowed?

If I could give you that answer, and know I was right, I probably would be too smart to do what I currently do for a living:happyyes:.

 

[petersonra]

I think it is a good argument. In fact, Camlok connectors actually come with the heavy foil for this purpose.

Whether it would be acceptable to the AHJ is something else.

Since you can get listed connectors for use with finer stranded wire, i would just use them unless I could get approval in advance.

Incidentally, I asked UL about using this method in UL508a applications and never actually got an answer.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

Incidentally, I asked UL about using this method in UL508a applications and never actually got an answer.

This is the answer I got from the state.

I haven?t seen this product, typically only compression sleeve type terminal connectors are approved for fine strand conductors, normal lugs with set screws are not.

 

[Ragin Cajun]

Aren't we supposed to be "skilled" workers? :lol:

Supposed to and actuality are - two different issues.

RC

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The Square D article doesn't say that the testing was done by a third party, so the method is not a "listed" method, however the code rule in 110.14 stops short of requiring the use of a listed product for finely stranded conductors.
I agree with Jim, that the AHJ could use this information to permit the installation method.

 

[John120/240]

If SQ D would provide the necessary shim stock with lugs as a kit would that not suffice ? But then would SQ D need to get the lugs

listed for use with shim stock ?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

If SQ D would provide the necessary shim stock with lugs as a kit would that not suffice ? But then would SQ D need to get the lugs

listed for use with shim stock ?

The code section says that the termination must be "identified" for use with finely stranded conductors. That stops short of requiring it to be listed. I think that you can make the case that the SquareD publication "identifies" their mechanical terminations for use with the finely stranded conductors.

 

[petersonra]

The code section says that the termination must be "identified" for use with finely stranded conductors. That stops short of requiring it to be listed. I think that you can make the case that the SquareD publication "identifies" their mechanical terminations for use with the finely stranded conductors.

I agree. I don't think you can use this to support putting it in a UL listed panel, but for general use with Square D lugs, I think it "should" fly.

Whether an inspector would flag it or not is something else. I personally think this is something that should be brought to the attention of whomever has jurisdiction over deciding what is approved or not and asking for something in writing. Something as simple as asking whether they consider such a document to fulfill the NEC requirement for being identified.

The inspector would not be the guy to ask this of as they almost never have such authority, even though they often act as if they do, and many think they do.