Flexible cord in Class 1 Div 1 area for signal wiring

[ambecker]

I have an interesting installation problem in a C1D1 area. A piece of industrial process equipment is mounted on a cart, and since it must be moveable it must be connectorized.

I've identified a 19 pin plug/receptacle I plan to use, it's C1D1 rated. My question is regarding what I can use between the plug and the equipment. I need at least 8 conductors with shielding, depending on how many receptacles and cables I use. X-proof flex would be very difficult to work with and hard to get long enough. I want to use the following cable, or something similar:

http://www.amercable.com/doc/catalogs/gexol/37-102-Shielded-Pairs.pdf

That cutsheet says the cable is suitable for use in a C1D1 environment, if it is ordered with the optional armor and sheath. Can I use it as a flexible cord in my C1D1 area per 501.140? It isn't any of the types listed for extra-hard usage, and it doesn't contain an equipment gnding conductor per 400.23. It also isn't type MI or MC-HL, which are listed in 501.10. Which of the ratings, approvals, or features of this cable make it legal to install in a C1D1 area?

 

[rbalex]

I?ve been putting this off all day in hopes that someone else would steer you toward a cable that was acceptable :roll: - I don?t know of one.:-?

You are dealing with one of the "grayest" areas I know of in Classified locations.

Theoretically, you have described something that isn?t really in the NEC?s Scope (Section 90.1) since it isn?t an ?installation? but rather an ?equipment application? in a Classified location. When I was on CMP14 there was much soul-searching about how far ?non-installations? should be covered. Both Article 500 and 501 Scopes sort of wimp-out on the subject since they didn?t want to be in conflict with the NEC?s primary Scope. The Panel recognized some things, like portable lighting, was easy to deal with and other things like calculators, PDAs (I have a Class I, Division 2, Group A,B,C,D listed PDA) cell phones, pace makers, and other personal portable devices would be a nightmare.

I guess the simplest answer, is there is no good technical reason you shouldn?t be able to use the armored construction with an aluminum or tinned copper armor as the equipment grounding conductor and connectors listed for grounding. Unfortunately you already cited the ?Code? reasons it isn?t acceptable. It would take about 4 and possibly more coordinated proposals to make acceptable. Making those Proposals is a manufacture?s job since it would involve multiple CMP?s.

This cut sheet is for Marine Shipboard Cable for use in mobile offshore drilling units (MODU's), and is one of the toughest constructions you will ever find. On a percentage basis there are more Division 1 locations on offshore drilling rigs than just about any other general type facility.

The ?Suitable for use in Class I, Division 1 and Zone 1 environments? is a bit misleading only to the extent that it is the US Coast Guard rather than a specific NEC Section that recognizes it and facilities they monitor aren?t subject to the NEC.

Personally, I?d go for a Section 90.4 ?special permission.? This is a very good cable. I'd also be more concerned with the connectors/receptacles.