Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

Status
Not open for further replies.
joe tedesco

joe tedesco

Senior Member
Location
Boston, Massachusetts
I am interested in hearing about your experiences concerning the two recognized code methods for splicing the GEC, etc..

[ February 23, 2005, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: joe tedesco ]
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

I like both methods.

Exothermic welding has a proven history and the cost for materials and setup is very low. The end result is not as pretty, unless you take the time to polish the connection.

Compression-type connectors look really nice when completed, however I feel the intial cost of the crimping tool prevents some contractors from making the investment. I recently saw a new compact crimp tool at a trade show that uses a hydrogen fuel cell as its power source. Pretty neat.
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

'Cad-Welds', contrary to some beliefs, do not always turn out perfectly.

You could be going along doing numerous identical welds and all of a sudden one will burn through the wire or half of it won't take. So you end up having to do another, or two, or three.

But they're still a fun part of the job.
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

Also, doesn't lightning 'not like' to make sharp 90 degree turns?

If that's the case then the crimp as above or the side/side exothermic weld with the extention conductor making a sweeping turn would probably be better in some situations.
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

Todd, you are correct in that lightning doesn't like to make right angle turns but it will take a right angle turn. What I mean by that is that it will jump to a better path if it is available but will make the turn if another path is not available.

The biggest downsides of Caddweld are: </font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">damp molds where they have been left in a tool box or storage shed over the weekend</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the process can not be used in rain or drizzle</font>
  • <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">the molds "wear out" after about 50 shots, then you have to be creative by using putty to seal against leakage or old pennies to add more copper to the mix (not listed since it changes the mix and has not been tested)</font>
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">We used to use the Caddweld system for all of our grounding grids in our substations but have gone to the mechanical type because of the above downsides. :D
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

Originally posted by charlie:
or old pennies to add more copper to the mix (not listed since it changes the mix and has not been tested)
Click to expand...
Charlie, you're not suggesting that we purposely commit a Federal Offense, are you? ;)
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

Not only the federal offense, but the listing violation in the same breath?

Charlie, are you feeling all right? :D
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

Charlie years ago maybe the pennies would of worked but now they are copper coated zinc.
Cadweld has a new electric ignition and shots that save some time. You still have to dry out the mold with a torch beforehand.
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

I was one of about a half-dozen proposers to suggest recognizing "irreversible" mechanical connectors as an alternate to exothermic welds.

My proposal was based strictly on personal experience. We found that, along with the issues Charlie cited, "pits" formed in exothermic welds greater than #6 so the cross-sectional area was indeterminate. The phenomena increased with larger conductors. The manufacture said we were making the welds improperly.

Since the particular project had literally millions of welds we were able to have the manufacture's "factory" reps show us how to do it correctly - at the time, they had the same success we did.
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

I got out of the trade in 1979 and that is when I used "old" pennies. I know that the pennies today are copper plated zinc. I also know that the process was not listed when I did it. Never the less, I violated the manufacturers instructions by using the old pennies instead of the steel inserts.

By the way, it is not a federal violation to destroy coinage. If it were, the Hunt brothers would have been placed in jail when they tried to corner the silver market. :D
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

Originally posted by charlie:
I also know that the process was not listed when I did it.
Click to expand...
I still don't think it's a listed connection. They don't advertise it as listed on the website.

I think there is too much potential for user error for it to be listed. It could possibly be classified though.

Besides a visual inspection, the Erico rep told me the way to test a cadweld to a steel column is to hit it with a hammer. Simple and effective. :D

There is a test report on the erico website about cadweld connections
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

Larry, they may have stopped paying for their listing but at one time, they had the UL molded right into the finished connection. :D
 
Re: Recognized methods used to splice the GEC, etc.

Don
Thanks for the link, I don't know why I could not find it. When you look up the file number on UL's website, it does not mention Cadweld.
To me it's an academic question as the NEC does not specifically require exothermic conn's to be listed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top