This bend too sharp?

**Marc M** · 07-02-2010, 11:47 PM

Wondering if this is too sharp. Line side.

Similar Threads:

**Michael Thomas** · 07-03-2010, 03:14 AM

See attached:

**Jerry Peck** · 07-03-2010, 10:54 AM

Micheal,

That information is not consistent with what I got from them, and those radius bends simply cannot be made in the spaces provided in the electrical equipment (panels, etc.).

Attached is what I got from them in May of 2001 and is actually "doable" (oh how I hate that word) within the spaces provided in the electrical equipment.

Use your information for a description of what a "radius" is, but we should all know that, and what a "diameter" is (the "radius" of a bend is one-half the "diameter" of the bend), but I would use Table H-1 in the information I posted for determining the minimum radius requirements (at least for our uses).

My first attachment is their entire page with my comments on it (my comments are in the outlined boxes). My second attachment is Table H-1 larger for easier reading (I have the entire page larger, but it is too large of a file to post here).

Marc,

Yes, those are bent way too sharply.

**Marc M** · 07-03-2010, 09:18 PM

Very good, thank you.

**Michael Thomas** · 07-03-2010, 09:34 PM

Thanks for posting that.

**Jim Port** · 07-04-2010, 08:56 AM

In the PDF posted by MT, those articles cover cables over 600 volts, type NM cables and Type TC cables. None of which is shown in the pic.

In the table posted by JP, it says recommended, not required bend radius.

**Jerry Peck** · 07-04-2010, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Jim Port

In the table posted by JP, it says recommended, not required bend radius.

And if not as recommended, then it is not as the manufacture recommended or listed and labeled their cables, which makes it installed not in accordance with its listing and labeling, and not being installed and used in accordance with its listing and labeling is a violation of 110.3(B).

**Jim Port** · 07-04-2010, 06:33 PM

Being recommended is not the same as a listing or labeling. I think that is a stretch to imply.

In a conversation with a UL engineer his take was that L&L was more like are you using the product for the purpose it was designed for. For example, using PVC water pipe as a conduit instead of properly listed RNMC.

**Jerry Peck** · 07-04-2010, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Jim Port

In a conversation with a UL engineer his take was that L&L was more like are you using the product for the purpose it was designed for. For example, using PVC water pipe as a conduit instead of properly listed RNMC.

In my conversations with them (engineers and senior engineers with UL) it has been that if the product is not being used as it was tested, listed and labeled, i.e., in strict accordance with the standard to which the product was tested, listed and labeled, then it was not installed or being used in accordance with its listing and labeling, and that is the code violation.

- 110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use of Equipment.
- - (B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

You will notice in the above that it states (bold is mine) "shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling" and not just "labeling". In accordance with its listing means in accordance with the standard used for it listing, which is the standard used for its testing.

Whenever I've had a technical question about the way something is being used, they (UL) go back to the standard to which it was tested and if that use was covered in the standard it is okay, if that use was not covered in the standard, it is not okay.