XHHN - XHWN-2
- Thread starter tortuga
- Start date
- Status
romex jockey
Senior Member
- Location
- Vermont
- Occupation
- electrician
IIRC, it was the sunlight resistance that made '2'
~RJ~
~RJ~
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
No, the -2 indicates that the wet temperature rating is the same as the dry.
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
- Occupation
- Electrical Engineer
N always means Nylon jacketed for resistance to oil and gas, so I'd say you got it.
X = XLPE insulation material
H = High (heat)
W = Water Resistant
N = Nylon jacketed (in all other wire insulation definitions)
-2 = 90C wet or dry (without the -2 it is 75C wet, 90C dry)
I have a copy of UL-44 (for this type of cable) and it isn't in there, but mine is dated 2002 and the latest edition is 2015, so they may have added it.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
It was added to Table 310.104(A) for the 2017 code. I have never seen it.
- Location
- Bremerton, Washington
- Occupation
- Master Electrician
Our preferred wire for street lighting is XHHW-2. Holds up far better than THHN/W, which has a very thin insulation and easy to damage, ok inside. Underground I have seen THHN/W fail.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Yes, I specify XHHW for all underground as well as for VFD applications.
I do as well. I find supply houses don't stock allot of XHHW-2 copper.
I get loads of complaints that its more difficult to strip the smaller sizes like 10 XHHW-2 copper.
But none of you have seen XHHN?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
It is more difficult to strip in the smaller sizes and the OD is substantially greater in the smaller sizes than THWN.
I have never seen the nylon jacketed version. It does not even appear in Chapter 9, Table 5.
Bump..
Mods please dont lock this thread no matter how old it gets until someone posts a pic of XHHN.
Its now nearing three years since I posted this, still no sign of XHHN.
(Not XHHW we all have seen that. XHHN as in November)
Why is a product that does not exist in the code?
Mods please dont lock this thread no matter how old it gets until someone posts a pic of XHHN.
Its now nearing three years since I posted this, still no sign of XHHN.
(Not XHHW we all have seen that. XHHN as in November)
Why is a product that does not exist in the code?
Fred B
Senior Member
- Location
- Upstate, NY
- Occupation
- Electrician
Interesting, this designation appears in none of the other 310 tables, nor in the chapter 9 tables. So even "if" we could find it, there is no guidance as to application or amperage/temperature. I wonder if Southwire is developing a product like their SimPull that has a slick outer coating eliminating (per mfg specs) the need for pulling lube. According to table 310.104(A) the designation differs from the typical xhhw-2 in that it has an outer covering of a nylon jacket.
Carultch
Senior Member
- Location
- Massachusetts
Maybe because there are proposals from manufacturers to make such a wire, and the code article is based on the product's proposed spec's, so that a testing standard can be developed for it.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Why is it so important to know this? xhhn was allowed by the nec but was it necessary. The manufacturers obviously don't see a need for it. Someone probably thought it was a good idea..... obviously it wasn't.
Just curious really, there has to be a story there.
Figured some industry insider on here would eventually share.
- Status