Triplex (xlpe covered conductor) Ampacity #6 on a 90A?

[tortuga]

I get a queasy feeling sizing triplex feeder runs on poles.
Question does existing #6 AL triplex identified as XLPE and run in free air on poles utility style violate NEC on 90A breaker? Mast conductors are 1/0 AL XHHW-2.
Neutral meets 250.32(B)(1)Exception

Art 100 defined covered conductor.
XLPE not recognized by code = covered.
ART 225.4 permits outside feeders to be covered.
Table 396.10 A permits other factory assembled power cable identified for the use.
ART 100 defines Identified. Triplex is Identified for the use.
MFR has it tested is used by utilities all the time.
Table 310.15(B)21 Covered conductors in free air.
#6 AWG = 101A

110.3(B) Have to use mfr instructions
MFG ampacity table states "COLLIE"
6awg XLPE = 85A
240.4(B) Next size up = 90A

Link to MFR instructions.
http://www.cable.alcan.com/NR/rdonl...1/0/MultiplexOverheadServiceCableBrochure.pdf

 

[iwire]

First problem is that cable does not meet NEC requirements ........ in other words officially you cannot use it at all for NEC applications.

It is not marked as required, I don't think it is an insulation type found in Table 310.13..

But forgetting all that you could only run it at those ampacitys if the terminations on each end are rated that high.

 

[tortuga]

I thought ART 225.4 permits outside feeders to be covered.
As opposed to insulated.

 

[Smart $]

I thought ART 225.4 permits outside feeders to be covered.
As opposed to insulated.

Triplex is a cable. 225.4 says wet locations must comply with 310.8, which permits only the listed types of cables.

 

[Hv&Lv]

I would think 310.10(C) & (D) would cover triplex. (2011 NEC) 310.10 doesn't say "Only the conductors..." I could be wrong, but I would need convincing.
In the 2008 NEC, I would think that 310.8(C)(3) & 310.8(D)(1) would allow XLPE covered triplex for overhead wet locations. It is listed....

 

[tortuga]

Triplex is a cable. 225.4 says wet locations must comply with 310.8, which permits only the listed types of cables.

Thats what I thought. It is defined in 396.2 (4) as a type of cable.
225.3 then T 225.3 deals with the specific case of messenger supported wiring.
So it is specifically defers to art 396.
The handbook commentary after 396.10 (p 496) is interesting.
It recognizes an issue of the cable not conforming with 310, and states that the triplex "would be acceptable only where approved by the authority having jurisdiction"

Southwires specs for #6 triplex XLPE (#6 AL Rated 101A) states:

SPECIFICATIONS
Southwire's triplex service drop cable meets or exceeds the following ASTM specifications:
? B-230 Aluminum Wire, 1350-H19 for Electrical Purposes.
? B-231 Aluminum Conductors, Concentric-Lay-Stranded.
? B-232 Aluminum Conductors, Concentric-Lay-Stranded, Coated Steel Reinforced(ACSR).
? B-399 Stranded 6201-T81 Aluminum Alloy Conductors.
? B-901 Compressed Round Stranded Aluminum Conductors Using Single Input Wire.
Southwire's triplex service drop cable meets or exceeds all applicable requirements of ANSI/ICEA S-76-474.

Does this ICEA meet [2011 NEC] 310.10(C)(3) (same as 310.8 2008 NEC I think) ?
See also:
http://www.southwire.com/ProductCatalog/XTEInterfaceServlet?contentKey=prodcatsheet34
http://www.cerrowire.com/files/file/21 cmd TriplexDrop 5-27-2011.pdf

Or as the AHJ should you decide you approve of these cables, would you approve of the mfr ampacity table 110.3(B) or T 310.15(B)21 [2011 NEC] or 310.15.21 [2008 nec] ? Or which ever is lower?

 

[hurk27]

Doesn't XLPE have a dual listing like URD/USE? and would this apply to conductors totally outside? as URD/USE is allowed outside but not inside

 

[iwire]

Doesn't XLPE have a dual listing like URD/USE? and would this apply to conductors totally outside? as URD/USE is allowed outside but not inside

Some may, neither cut sheet indicates it is.

 

[iwire]

Does this ICEA meet [2011 NEC] 310.10(C)(3) (same as 310.8 2008 NEC I think) ?
See also:
http://www.southwire.com/ProductCatalog/XTEInterfaceServlet?contentKey=prodcatsheet34
http://www.cerrowire.com/files/file/21 cmd TriplexDrop 5-27-2011.pdf

I do not think any of the cables you have posted comply with 2011 NEC

310.120 Marking.

(A) Required Information. All conductors and cables
shall be marked to indicate the following information, using
the applicable method described in 310.120(B):

(1) The maximum rated voltage.

(2) The proper type letter or letters for the type of wire or
cable as specified elsewhere in this Code.

(3) The manufacturer?s name, trademark, or other distinctive
marking by which the organization responsible for
the product can be readily identified.

(4) The AWG size or circular mil area.
Informational Note: See Conductor Properties, Table 8 of
Chapter 9, for conductor area expressed in SI units for
conductor sizes specified in AWG or circular mil area.

(5) Cable assemblies where the neutral conductor is smaller
than the ungrounded conductors shall be so marked.

Or as the AHJ should you decide you approve of these cables, would you approve of the mfr ampacity table 110.3(B) or T 310.15(B)21 [2011 NEC] or 310.15.21 [2008 nec] ? Or which ever is lower?

Lets assume these cables are accepted.

You can't use the manufactures capacity at all.

310.15 Ampacities for Conductors Rated 0?2000 Volts.

(A) General.

(1) Tables or Engineering Supervision. Ampacities for
conductors shall be permitted to be determined by tables as
provided in 310.15(B) or under engineering supervision, as
provided in 310.15(C).

No option for manufactures ampacities.


As far as what table you can use ....... the cable is not marked with NEC markings so you really have no table to use.

If you could use Table 310.15(B)(18) for the cable rating 110.14 would still limit the ampacity to the temperature of the terminations which could be as low as 60C.

 

[Smart $]

Thats what I thought. It is defined in 396.2 (4) as a type of cable.
225.3 then T 225.3 deals with the specific case of messenger supported wiring.
So it is specifically defers to art 396.
The handbook commentary after 396.10 (p 496) is interesting.
It recognizes an issue of the cable not conforming with 310, and states that the triplex "would be acceptable only where approved by the authority having jurisdiction"

Southwires specs for #6 triplex XLPE (#6 AL Rated 101A) states:


Does this ICEA meet [2011 NEC] 310.10(C)(3) (same as 310.8 2008 NEC I think) ?
See also:
http://www.southwire.com/ProductCatalog/XTEInterfaceServlet?contentKey=prodcatsheet34
http://www.cerrowire.com/files/file/21 cmd TriplexDrop 5-27-2011.pdf

Or as the AHJ should you decide you approve of these cables, would you approve of the mfr ampacity table 110.3(B) or T 310.15(B)21 [2011 NEC] or 310.15.21 [2008 nec] ? Or which ever is lower?

The documentation presented leaves what I highlighted as the only alternative to NEC compliance.

Any answer to the ampacity question from other than the AHJ would be mere speculation. My perspective would based on the means of transition (i.e. splicing method). If weatherproof 90?C-rated splicing method is used and such is ten feet or greater from a 75?C-rated connection, I would probably allow the highest NEC ampacity for similar listed cable. But that's just me... speculating.

 

[kwired]

Is there an overhead conductor that is NEC compliant? Many people do not run into this problem on most residential or commercial installations. But on the farms there is a lot of overhead conductors sometimes. Aluminum triplex is all there is except for 60+ year old already installed hard drawn copper.

 

[Hv&Lv]

Is there an overhead conductor that is NEC compliant? Many people do not run into this problem on most residential or commercial installations. But on the farms there is a lot of overhead conductors sometimes. Aluminum triplex is all there is except for 60+ year old already installed hard drawn copper.

I would think that any that meet 310.10(C)(3)&(D)(1) would work. Most meet these requirements.

 

[Smart $]

I would think that any that meet 310.10(C)(3)&(D)(1) would work. Most meet these requirements.

So the cables referenced by the OP'er are the exception???

 

[iwire]

I would think that any that meet 310.10(C)(3)&(D)(1) would work. Most meet these requirements.

I have never seen or heard of a duplex, triplex or quadplex XLPE cable that was NEC compliant.

That does not mean they do not exist but they are certainly rare if they are available.

And yes, I understand XLPE is safe and often used for NEC applications, I have used some in the past that does not mean it is actually compliant.

 

[Hv&Lv]

I have never seen or heard of a duplex, triplex or quadplex XLPE cable that was NEC compliant.

That does not mean they do not exist but they are certainly rare if they are available.

And yes, I understand XLPE is safe and often used for NEC applications, I have used some in the past that does not mean it is actually compliant.

But if they are listed for wet and listed or marked for sunlight, why wouldn't they be compliant? :?

 

[suemarkp]

For the same reason automotive, aircraft, and MIL wires are non compliant. It is nice that most of the NEC is a permissive document. But when it comes to wires, all types are denied unless you use the specific types listed in the code book. There could be plenty of wires that would meet or exceed the listing requirements of one of the recognized wire types. But until it gets listed as one of those, you can't use it.

 

[Smart $]

But if they are listed for wet and listed or marked for sunlight, why wouldn't they be compliant? :?

You keep saying they are listed. Any designated solely as XLPE is not listed. My understanding is that XLPE is a pseudo-acronym for a plastic material otherwise known as cross-linked polyethylene... and this plastic has variations in compositional characteristics.

Another plastic compound which also has varied compositional characteristics is PVC. Compare PVC conduit to the inner insulation of THHN. Both are PVC.

One variation of XLPE is the plumbing type used in PEX (also a pseudo-acronym). Yet another type is that used in XHHW listed insulated wire. As I understand it, the X represents an insulation made of XLPE.

I recall using an insulated conductor marked XHHW/XLPE. However, it is the XHHW designation which made it a listed conductor... not the XLPE marking.

 

[tortuga]

Excellent point on the terminations, they are "UL Listed and CSA certified for 600 volts, 90?C"

There does not seem to be a good case for 310 broadly applying to messenger cables covered by art 396. 396.10(A) "specifically provides" ,as mentioned in 310.1, messenger cable types that "shall be" permitted. T396.10(A) "other factory assembled ... .... power cable identified for the use ... shall be permitted.
(not listed and no mention of 310 withstanding)
225.4 does not invoke 310 to broadly apply to all outside feeder types. Then it is necessary to use the term "covered" and invoke 310.10(C) in 225.4 when we are going to deal with "specifically provided for" outside feeder conductors omitted by 310.1 that are in wet locations, or exposed to sunlight.

General Cable has a guide that refers to sizing triplex under 310.15(B)20 or if conditions are different 310.15(C).
Link to guide see page 23 last paragraph.
http://generalcable.com/NR/rdonlyre...5A9ADFA2974/0/GCCableInstallManual_FINAL2.pdf

my investigation continues.....

 

[Hv&Lv]

You keep saying they are listed. Any designated solely as XLPE is not listed. My understanding is that XLPE is a pseudo-acronym for a plastic material otherwise known as cross-linked polyethylene... and this plastic has variations in compositional characteristics.

Another plastic compound which also has varied compositional characteristics is PVC. Compare PVC conduit to the inner insulation of THHN. Both are PVC.

One variation of XLPE is the plumbing type used in PEX (also a pseudo-acronym). Yet another type is that used in XHHW listed insulated wire. As I understand it, the X represents an insulation made of XLPE.

I recall using an insulated conductor marked XHHW/XLPE. However, it is the XHHW designation which made it a listed conductor... not the XLPE marking.

I keep saying listed based on this:

Listed. Equipment, materials, or services included in a list
published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority
having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation
of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection
of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic
evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either
the equipment, material, or service meets appropriate designated
standards or has been tested and found suitable for
a specified purpose.
FPN: The means for identifying listed equipment may vary
for each organization concerned with product evaluation,
some of which do not recognize equipment as listed unless
it is also labeled. Use of the system employed by the listing
organization allows the authority having jurisdiction to
identify a listed product.

So if ANSI/ICEA meets these requirements above, wouldn't the products they list for the use described be "listed"?

 

[Smart $]

I keep saying listed based on this:

Listed. Equipment, materials, or services included in a list
published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority
having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation
of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection
of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic
evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either
the equipment, material, or service meets appropriate designated
standards or has been tested and found suitable for
a specified purpose.
FPN: The means for identifying listed equipment may vary
for each organization concerned with product evaluation,
some of which do not recognize equipment as listed unless
it is also labeled. Use of the system employed by the listing
organization allows the authority having jurisdiction to
identify a listed product.

So if ANSI/ICEA meets these requirements above, wouldn't the products they list for the use described be "listed"?

ANSI and ICEA, to the best of my knowledge (TTBOMK), do not evaluate or list products. Both organizations develop and publish standards... but that's as far as they go (once again, TTBOMK).

A manufacture stating their product is manufacturerd to those standards is the same as one "saying" they manufacture to UL standards. However, a product is not UL Listed until UL evaluates and certifies that it is manufactured to UL Standards (which, btw, may be identical or based on an ANSI or other standard).

I'm certain someone will correct me if I am in error