overhead triplex

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

olly

Senior Member
Location
Berthoud, Colorado
Occupation
Master Electrician
I have always seen a splice right at the weather head. From the utility wire to the customers wire which is usually copper. Does anyone know if you can run ASCR (aluminum conductor steel reinforced) tri plex down a riser and land it in the meter?

I ask because I am coming back out of the disconnect and running over head to another panal and dont really want to have to spilce on to go down the riser?
 
I don't know of any code that specifically prohibits it.

However I do wonder a couple of things.

How are you leaving a disconnect to feed another panel with 3 wire?

Is the triplex you are using a listed?
 
As soon as you put a triplex or quadplex in a conduit of any type, it will then be undersized for its load. They can be so much smaller than the service entrance they feed only because they're run in free air with the cooling that affords. Don't do it.
 
olly said:
I have always seen a splice right at the weather head. From the utility wire to the customers wire which is usually copper. Does anyone know if you can run ASCR (aluminum conductor steel reinforced) tri plex down a riser and land it in the meter?

I ask because I am coming back out of the disconnect and running over head to another panal and dont really want to have to spilce on to go down the riser?
Click to expand...

I am not clear on what you are doing. What does coming back out of the disconnect regardless of how or where to have to do with not wanting a splice at the weather head? What is going on that you are rearranging the service drop so much? Is this a meter/disconnect combo with two risers, one for the service entrance conductors and one for the feeder?
 
PetrosA said:
As soon as you put a triplex or quadplex in a conduit of any type, it will then be undersized for its load. They can be so much smaller than the service entrance they feed only because they're run in free air with the cooling that affords. Don't do it.
Click to expand...

If you size it per the normal ampacity table that is a non-issue.
 
iwire said:
If you size it per the normal ampacity table that is a non-issue.
Click to expand...

I checked after I wrote that yesterday and you're right. I think I had individual conductor in free air in mind, or was working with common POCO sizes in mind where you often see a 2 AWG triplex feeding a 200A service. Either way, I was wrong. :dunce:
 
It is my opinion that the triplex or quadplex is an "Other factory-assembled, multiconductor control, signal, or power cables that are identified for the use". This working is from Table 396.10(A) and stops short of requiring the use of a listed product.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It is my opinion that the triplex or quadplex is an "Other factory-assembled, multiconductor control, signal, or power cables that are identified for the use". This working is from Table 396.10(A) and stops short of requiring the use of a listed product.
Click to expand...

Interesting !!! I always allowed it for messenger supported wiring, but could only now justify that decision :). Thanks.
In regard to the OP, do you agree that unless one can find a "listed" tri/quad, it would not be allowed in a riser ?
 
olly said:
...
I ask because I am coming back out of the disconnect and running over head to another panal and dont really want to have to spilce on to go down the riser?
Click to expand...

I can't tell what you are trying to do exactly, but from this description it seems right to remind you that service and feeder conductors cannot be in the same riser per 230.7.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It is my opinion that the triplex or quadplex is an "Other factory-assembled, multiconductor control, signal, or power cables that are identified for the use". This working is from Table 396.10(A) and stops short of requiring the use of a listed product.
Click to expand...

I don't see anything in 310.10(C) or (D) that would allow the use of typical quadplex labelled only XLPE.

Perhaps it should have 'unless allowed by other sections of this code' added to it. :)
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
I don't see anything in 310.10(C) or (D) that would allow the use of typical quadplex labelled only XLPE.

Perhaps it should have 'unless allowed by other sections of this code' added to it. :)
Click to expand...
I believe you have pointed out 310.120 as well in the past.
 
Volta said:
I can't tell what you are trying to do exactly, but from this description it seems right to remind you that service and feeder conductors cannot be in the same riser per 230.7.
Click to expand...
I was going to ask how he was going to get around that one myself.
 
augie47 said:
Interesting !!! I always allowed it for messenger supported wiring, but could only now justify that decision :). Thanks.
In regard to the OP, do you agree that unless one can find a "listed" tri/quad, it would not be allowed in a riser ?
Click to expand...
I don't think it would be permitted in the riser, listed or not.
 
iwire said:
I don't see anything in 310.10(C) or (D) that would allow the use of typical quadplex labelled only XLPE.

Perhaps it should have 'unless allowed by other sections of this code' added to it. :)
Click to expand...
Per the scope statement, Article 310 applies to conductors, not cable assemblies. It you want to apply it to cable assemblies, then we eliminate NM (which would be fine with me:))
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Per the scope statement, Article 310 applies to conductors, not cable assemblies. It you want to apply it to cable assemblies, then we eliminate NM (which would be fine with me:))
Click to expand...

So the ampacity tables contained in 310 do not apply to cables?

Cool, time to stock up on 14 AWG cables. :D
 
iwire said:
So the ampacity tables contained in 310 do not apply to cables?

Cool, time to stock up on 14 AWG cables. :D
Click to expand...
They attempted to address that within the titles of the ampacity tables..."not more than 3 current carrying conductors in a raceway or cable", but based on the scope statement none of the rules in 310 that talk about cables are valid.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
They attempted to address that within the titles of the ampacity tables..."not more than 3 current carrying conductors in a raceway or cable", but based on the scope statement none of the rules in 310 that talk about cables are valid.
Click to expand...

But lets live in the real world and in the real world 310 applies to cables.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top