Regulation on how often the AWG must be printed on wire?

B

brycenesbitt

Senior Member
Location
United States
How often on a cable must the AWG be printed?

Often there's long sections of blank wire, and long sections of irrelevant driven, THEN the printing goes bad.
Sometimes the wire goes into a hole before any markings can be seen.

I'm sure it's somewhere in one of these.... is the printing frequency regulated?

UL Standard 83 (THHN/THWN-2)
UL Standard 758 (AWM)
UL Standard 1063 (MTW)
CSA Standard C22.2 No. 75 (T90 Nylon/TWN75).
ASTM B3, B8, and B787.
ICEA S-95-658/NEMA WC70.
Federal Specification A-A-59544.
UL 1581, UL 2556 and UL 1685 as applicable
 
brycenesbitt said:
Often there's long sections of blank wire, and long sections of irrelevant driven, THEN the printing goes bad.
Sometimes the wire goes into a hole before any markings can be seen.
Click to expand...
A-men, this is one of those little things that drives me crazy. Here what they should do:

1. Make it legible
2. Please check, is it actually legible or did you move on to #2 without actual fixing the legibility issue?
3. Get rid of the drivel
4. I want type, gauge and footage every foot.
 
Birken Vogt said:
5. When installing, always remember to scrape off the AWG part when it is visible in an enclosure so the next guy can't read it
Click to expand...
Too stringent. It should also be permitted to simply rotate the conductor so that the printed info faces the back of the enclosure where it can't be seen. Or, to wrap the entire conductor with the enclosure in electrical tape when marking the grounded conductor and phases.
 
electrofelon said:
The NEC does say every 24" though, so they have the power to change it to if they want.

Someone should report the legibility issue to UL
Click to expand...
There is nothing in the NEC that actually applies to the wire manufacturers. If the NEC would change that rule, it would trigger a proposal to change the product standard, and if the product standard would change then the manufacturers would follow the product standard.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
There is nothing in the NEC that actually applies to the wire manufacturers. If the NEC would change that rule, it would trigger a proposal to change the product standard, and if the product standard would change then the manufacturers would follow the product standard.
Click to expand...
Ill bet you an ice cream sandwich if the nec required it, the manufacturers would do it. (The NEC has done that before and in my opinion it's abusive of their power and they are operating out of their lane, but they could do it)
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
There is nothing in the NEC that actually applies to the wire manufacturers. If the NEC would change that rule, it would trigger a proposal to change the product standard, and if the product standard would change then the manufacturers would follow the product standard.
Click to expand...
Seems contradictory to your previous statements where I recall you saying that a listed component that doesn't meet a code rule cannot be installed under the code. Plus, in most places the NEC or some version of it has more force of law than the product standards.
 
electrofelon said:
Ill bet you an ice cream sandwich if the nec required it, the manufacturers would do it. (The NEC has done that before and in my opinion it's abusive of their power and they are operating out of their lane, but they could do it)
Click to expand...
The product change only happens after the product standard has been changed to require that change.

An issue like that is why we have to have neutrals at switch locations.
The code wanted to say that the electronic switch cannot use the EGC as a neutral, but UL said they would not change the product standard to prohibit the electronic switch from using the EGC as a current carrying conductor unless the code changed to require a neutral at the switch boxes. The NEC made the first change and then UL changed the product standard.

We have the same thing with PVC over 6". A new exception in the 2026 code permits larger than 6" PVC under certain conditions provided it is listed. The product standard, UL651 has no provisions to list PVC conduit larger than 6".
 
electrofelon said:
I just dont agree. The NEC can require whatever they want, and if AHJ's dont amend what they adopt then that is what the code is.
Click to expand...
The product does not change until the product standard changes. The manufacturers are not subject to the NEC. If the NEC requires a change in a product and the standard has not yet been changed, then 90.4(D) is applied until the standard is changed and the new product is available.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The product does not change until the product standard changes. The manufacturers are not subject to the NEC. If the NEC requires a change in a product and the standard has not yet been changed, then 90.4(D) is applied until the standard is changed and the new product is available.
Click to expand...
I understand that the manufacturers do not have to follow the NEC, however they have to sell their products. I guarantee that if the NEC required marking every foot (just a silly example, not saying they should or would) the manufacturers would comply.

90.4(D) is great, but too often AHJ's do not allow exceptions. We saw that with the silly line side connector requirement.
 
electrofelon said:
I understand that the manufacturers do not have to follow the NEC, however they have to sell their products.
Click to expand...
I have noticed this recently as I have been looking at kitchen island pop-up receptacles.
Today's marketing literature says one is NEC approved, but the installation instructions say it is built to NEC 2014 requirements and it must be replaced if liquid is spilled into it. Others say they meet current NEC but are only spill resistant when closed.

It is too bad we have to be UL standards experts in order to apply products to the NEC. I thought keeping track of which year NEC my locality was on was bad enough (we are still on 2017).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top