type tc in class1 div 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wyo1

Member
I'm currently install type tc in a class 1 div 2 area. My concern is this, when I drop out of cable tray to enter a non explosionproof box, I plan on doing so using ridgid metal conduit.

Do I need to seal the conduit with cable inside per 501.15 E 1, last sentance, or does this only apply to a box that is required to be explosion proof?

Also, do I need to use a cgb when entering the ridgid from the tray or would a standard ground bushing (to bond ridgid pipe) be ok?
 
In general, a seal is not required for non-explosionproof enclosures.

Give great consideration to proper bonding though. See 501.30. It is not required but often prudent to include an EGC in the TC cable.

The UL product standard considers Type TC to be a ?[c]able with a gas/vaportight continuous sheath?,? but it is not tested to determine if it is ?? capable of transmitting gases or vapors through the cable core?.? Assume that it is, so Section 501.15(E)(3) also applies. In general, a seal is still not required for the application as you have described it.

A CGB may be needed to comply with Section 501.10(B)(6). Check for obvious termination tensile stress.
 
Thanks Bob. Can I still use an open conduit on my stub ups to the tray in a classified area, assuming I'll fill with duct seal? My main intent there is to use a bonding bushing to bond the pipe. We'll have a 2/0 bare running the length of the tray to bond conduit, enclosures,etc., so I'd rather bond there instead of fighting bond bushing's, bonding myer's hubs inside the box.

BTW...I surfed this forum quite a while yesterday. I find it to be very useful and has many knowledgable members.
 
“Open conduits” are acceptable and no seals (including duct seal) are required from what you have described so far. Just be careful to bond properly. See Section 250.100 as referenced in 501.30(A)FPN.

The cable tray itself is commonly a suitable EGC, so the #2/0 is probably redundant. It is a commonly added feature though.

Edit Add: BTW welcome to the forums. :)
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the 2/0 is a standard the company I'm working for uses instead of a jumper at each section of tray. It's sometimes frustrating, but at the same time, I've always got a good source to ground handy in the tray. The ductseal is something else they like to see as a company standard to prevent water, dust, etc. getting into the enclosures.

They also want me to use bonding type liquidtight connectors on my instruments in this plant (transmitters, solenoids, level switches). I will do it as it's there project, but is it really necessary? The way I read section 500, it brings some questions to mind.

I guess I don't consider a transmitter a power utilization load. Are they just over bonding or do they have a point? We always pull an egc with everything, and every instrument will be bonded.
 
rbalex said:
?Open conduits? are acceptable and no seals (including duct seal) are required from what you have described so far. Just be careful to bond properly. See Section 250.100 as referenced in 501.30(A)FPN.

The cable tray itself is commonly a suitable EGC, so the #2/0 is probably redundant. It is a commonly added feature though.

Edit Add: BTW welcome to the forums. :)
Click to expand...

The conduit should not be left open and the cable should be terminated at the entry point for stress relief. Conduit should be installed as a complete system and therefore all openings be closed, unless it is not to be used as a raceway, but as a support system. In that case the conduit should be left open on both ends and the cable terminated at the end device via an approved means.

Good luck in maintaining the bending radius of the cable in the conduit fittings that you may install in the run. If you size the conduit for cable fill, the bending radius given by the corresponding fittings will not be sufficient.
 
With regard to the OP, the controlling text is Section 300.18, Exception.There is no requirement that the raceway be left unconnected at both ends, although it would be permitted. However it must be bonded properly at both ends.
 
weressl said:
The conduit should not be left open and the cable should be terminated at the entry point for stress relief. Conduit should be installed as a complete system and therefore all openings be closed, unless it is not to be used as a raceway, but as a support system. In that case the conduit should be left open on both ends and the cable terminated at the end device via an approved means.

Good luck in maintaining the bending radius of the cable in the conduit fittings that you may install in the run. If you size the conduit for cable fill, the bending radius given by the corresponding fittings will not be sufficient.
Click to expand...

The conduits will basically be nipples extending to the tray (straight piece of pipe about 4' long). I would just drop the cable in tray to the box, but some of these operators could bust an anvil with a toothpick!! I've tried pulling tray cable through fittings before and realize it's a disaster unless you oversize the fitting by a size or two.

I would think it would be ok if I used a cgb on the tray side of the conduit and a myers hub with a bonding lug on the box end, though.
 
Unless the transmitter is part of an intrinsically safe system, the need for proper bonding is the same as any other device. (I don?t want to imply proper bonding is unnecessary for IS either, it just isn?t quite as serious) If the LFMC it is to be used as the EGC, the fittings must already be listed for grounding/bonding under Section 250.118(5).

It does sound a bit like the facility has had bonding problems in the past. There may be a little over caution, but nothing seems extreme.
 
rbalex said:
With regard to the OP, the controlling text is Section 300.18, Exception.There is no requirement that the raceway be left unconnected at both ends, although it would be permitted. However it must be bonded properly at both ends.
Click to expand...

Except when you connect the conduit at the other end directly to the enclosure, whatever degree of protection you provide at the tray end of the conduit now will constitutes the degree of protection provided for the enclosure itself. A pop-on bushing provieds no degree of protection what soever. So if it is a NEMA 1 box the connection should be the same. Of it is a Nema 3, 3R or 4 box a CGB type conenctor is in order.

Furthermore the cable should be secured at the point of entry to relieve stress at the conductor termination point.
 
rbalex said:
Unless the transmitter is part of an intrinsically safe system, the need for proper bonding is the same as any other device. (I don?t want to imply proper bonding is unnecessary for IS either, it just isn?t quite as serious) If the LFMC it is to be used as the EGC, the fittings must already be listed for grounding/bonding under Section 250.118(5).

It does sound a bit like the facility has had bonding problems in the past. There may be a little over caution, but nothing seems extreme.
Click to expand...

Cable tray systems are often installed as discontinous systems. That and corrosion often leads people to wonder if they have sufficiently low impedance to trip on ground fault. The green wire in the tray is a kind of of visual assurance that there is.

I just have to smile when they still do that even though they have a HRG system.

I agree that ground wire in the cable is the best solution.
 
weressl said:
Except when you connect the conduit at the other end directly to the enclosure, whatever degree of protection you provide at the tray end of the conduit now will constitutes the degree of protection provided for the enclosure itself. A pop-on bushing provieds no degree of protection what soever. So if it is a NEMA 1 box the connection should be the same. Of it is a Nema 3, 3R or 4 box a CGB type conenctor is in order.

Furthermore the cable should be secured at the point of entry to relieve stress at the conductor termination point.
Click to expand...

I was planning on taking care of the stress at termination point with anchor points screwed into the backplate and tyraping the cable at a couple points. I've found a large base by t and b that will accomodate a #10 bolt and holds quite securely. Between that and a cgb, I would think I'd be covered.
 
wyo1 said:
I was planning on taking care of the stress at termination point with anchor points screwed into the backplate and tyraping the cable at a couple points. I've found a large base by t and b that will accomodate a #10 bolt and holds quite securely. Between that and a cgb, I would think I'd be covered.
Click to expand...

I don't think the Ty-wrap is necessary. The CGB takes care of both issues.
 
weressl said:
Except when you connect the conduit at the other end directly to the enclosure, whatever degree of protection you provide at the tray end of the conduit now will constitutes the degree of protection provided for the enclosure itself. ?
Click to expand...
Nonsense; from what National Standard did you get this assertion?
 
rbalex said:
Nonsense; from what National Standard did you get this assertion?
Click to expand...

When you install a NEMA 4 box what kind of connections are allowed to be made to it. Doesn't the connections need to maintain the NEMA rating of said box?

If you install a NEMA 4 box and you require a connection to a NEMA 1 box, wouldn't the interconnecting item would need to maintain the higher rating?

Wouldn't you secure the cable at the point of entry?

When you leave the conduit open don't you allow free contaminants, including water to freely enter?


Matter of fact we have found waterfull of motor pecker-heads as the result of this type installation. In MCC's where a single ~2' vertical conduit with pop-on bushing was utilized to 'drop-in' several cables allowed the free passage of dust to enter and accumulate in the MCC eventually resulting in dust carbonization, tracking and overflash.

As I said if you leave both end of the conduit open and make proper cable termination into the target device, I see no problem.
 
weressl said:
When you install a NEMA 4 box what kind of connections are allowed to be made to it. Doesn't the connections need to maintain the NEMA rating of said box?

If you install a NEMA 4 box and you require a connection to a NEMA 1 box, wouldn't the interconnecting item would need to maintain the higher rating?

Wouldn't you secure the cable at the point of entry?

When you leave the conduit open don't you allow free contaminants, including water to freely enter?


Matter of fact we have found waterfull of motor pecker-heads as the result of this type installation. In MCC's where a single ~2' vertical conduit with pop-on bushing was utilized to 'drop-in' several cables allowed the free passage of dust to enter and accumulate in the MCC eventually resulting in dust carbonization, tracking and overflash.

As I said if you leave both end of the conduit open and make proper cable termination into the target device, I see no problem.
Click to expand...
In other words - there is no such Standard.
 
weressl said:
When you install a NEMA 4 box what kind of connections are allowed to be made to it. Doesn't the connections need to maintain the NEMA rating of said box?

If you install a NEMA 4 box and you require a connection to a NEMA 1 box, wouldn't the interconnecting item would need to maintain the higher rating?

Wouldn't you secure the cable at the point of entry?

When you leave the conduit open don't you allow free contaminants, including water to freely enter?


Matter of fact we have found waterfull of motor pecker-heads as the result of this type installation. In MCC's where a single ~2' vertical conduit with pop-on bushing was utilized to 'drop-in' several cables allowed the free passage of dust to enter and accumulate in the MCC eventually resulting in dust carbonization, tracking and overflash.

As I said if you leave both end of the conduit open and make proper cable termination into the target device, I see no problem.

I'm not quite sure what you are refering to as "pop on bushings", but in response to your other questions,

The ty rap with base I was talking about earlier should provide adequate support for the cable where it enters the enclosure and duct sealing around the ground bushing where the cable enters the coduit should prevent contaminents from entering the jbox. (It does because we've done it in other industrial facilities and duct seal work fine).

I'm not against using cgb's on a coupling at the end of my conduit, but would prefer ductseal or some other sealing method. This would allow installing more than one cable in a nipple, which with a large number of small cables is nice.
Click to expand...
 
wyo1 said:
weressl said:
When you install a NEMA 4 box what kind of connections are allowed to be made to it. Doesn't the connections need to maintain the NEMA rating of said box?

If you install a NEMA 4 box and you require a connection to a NEMA 1 box, wouldn't the interconnecting item would need to maintain the higher rating?

Wouldn't you secure the cable at the point of entry?

When you leave the conduit open don't you allow free contaminants, including water to freely enter?


Matter of fact we have found waterfull of motor pecker-heads as the result of this type installation. In MCC's where a single ~2' vertical conduit with pop-on bushing was utilized to 'drop-in' several cables allowed the free passage of dust to enter and accumulate in the MCC eventually resulting in dust carbonization, tracking and overflash.

As I said if you leave both end of the conduit open and make proper cable termination into the target device, I see no problem.

I'm not quite sure what you are refering to as "pop on bushings", but in response to your other questions,

The ty rap with base I was talking about earlier should provide adequate support for the cable where it enters the enclosure and duct sealing around the ground bushing where the cable enters the coduit should prevent contaminents from entering the jbox. (It does because we've done it in other industrial facilities and duct seal work fine).

I'm not against using cgb's on a coupling at the end of my conduit, but would prefer ductseal or some other sealing method. This would allow installing more than one cable in a nipple, which with a large number of small cables is nice.
Click to expand...

Dux seal is no different than duct tape, with the exception that duct tape IS developed and approved to seal minute air-leaks in a crimped sheet-metal duct-work.

Dux seal compound is a temporary repair, fix in my book I would never use it for permanent installation. On the other hand my industry maybe subject to much harsher conditions than others. I just know what works and what isn't. Although it is resistant to shrinking it is not immune to it. Let me know if you intend to have a maintenance program going along with that to check for leaky patches.:grin:

As the profit pressures grow and the available workforce shrinks our primary objective is to minimize installations that require attention. Usually complex machinery, switchgear and control systems are much more complex and requiring higher skill so I wouldn't want to insult our skileld technicians to look for leaky seals.

I like to specify and use devices that are designed for the specific purpose, and select the best design for that specific use and refrain from inventive 'other uses'. I believe for example that the best multicoinductor sealing product is made by Roxtec. http://www.roxtec.com/ Even though it is an offshore product, it is superior in performance and flexibility to the other US made ones.
Click to expand...
 
weressl said:
wyo1 said:
Dux seal is no different than duct tape, with the exception that duct tape IS developed and approved to seal minute air-leaks in a crimped sheet-metal duct-work.

Dux seal compound is a temporary repair, fix in my book I would never use it for permanent installation. On the other hand my industry maybe subject to much harsher conditions than others. I just know what works and what isn't. Although it is resistant to shrinking it is not immune to it. Let me know if you intend to have a maintenance program going along with that to check for leaky patches.:grin:

As the profit pressures grow and the available workforce shrinks our primary objective is to minimize installations that require attention. Usually complex machinery, switchgear and control systems are much more complex and requiring higher skill so I wouldn't want to insult our skileld technicians to look for leaky seals.

I like to specify and use devices that are designed for the specific purpose, and select the best design for that specific use and refrain from inventive 'other uses'. I believe for example that the best multicoinductor sealing product is made by Roxtec. http://www.roxtec.com/ Even though it is an offshore product, it is superior in performance and flexibility to the other US made ones.
Click to expand...

These are slick, but don't get me from a conduit to a box or tray. I would prefer to not leave much exposed cable outside of the tray as I'm sure these operators are capable of trashing it somehow. Also, we'll be running some 100 hp motors @ 480 volts, so these and other power cables will create quite a hazard.

Too bad there isn't an electricaly rated expanding foam!!:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top