George's "Which Is Right" of the Day

[kwired]

I believe the tracer has to be visible to prove it is there and has not heen cut off... (which i have also seen guys do...)

If you can produce a code section that requires this we will go with it. That bare aluminum conductor inside is nothing more then a bonding strip to short out each turn of the spiral sheath to reduce its impedance. It requires no special attention and is acceptable to trim it short after stripping cable sheath. But you can find countless ideas out there of how this thing is to be handled.

From Southwire

Most fittings out there meet those requirements, I know the single cable version of the one in first picture does meet necessary requirements for use in health care, as I have researched them before, not certain about the duplex versions though, but am leaning toward them also being compliant.

MC does not need an anti-short bushing.

Picture 1 not supported within 12" from box termination.

We can't really see all of the first 12" to tell if it is properly supported, in picture 1.

I'm going with pic # 2 being the violation, set screw connector and aluminum sheath do not go together. Although, it is hard to tell from the pic if these connectors are actual set screws that contact the sheath or if there is a wedge that the set screw traps against the sheath. The latter would negate my guess

Not certain myself either, but am guessing the fitting is listed for use with aluminum sheath, I have seen advertising for these fittings but haven't used them.

so far all I see that I don't like is the set screws on the fittings in picture 2 appear to extend into space where the drywall will be placed.
Any other violations if they exist are going to be technical listing applications of a specific fitting, the box or the mud ring.

 

[kwired]

If anything spiraling the bond strip around the cable may make it too large for the fitting.

 

[iwire]

Those clamps are fine with aluminum sheath

The screw pushes on a very large plate.

 

[pjholguin]

Let me rephrase, Picture one doesn't show MC being supported.
Code requires a support within 12" from a box termination, however,
picture 1 appears not to give a large enough view to validate my statement. Based on the OP's question, picture 1 is the one that is in violation due to the lack of support.

If you can produce a code section that requires this we will go with it. That bare aluminum conductor inside is nothing more then a bonding strip to short out each turn of the spiral sheath to reduce its impedance. It requires no special attention and is acceptable to trim it short after stripping cable sheath. But you can find countless ideas out there of how this thing is to be handled.

Most fittings out there meet those requirements, I know the single cable version of the one in first picture does meet necessary requirements for use in health care, as I have researched them before, not certain about the duplex versions though, but am leaning toward them also being compliant.

We can't really see all of the first 12" to tell if it is properly supported, in picture 1.

Not certain myself either, but am guessing the fitting is listed for use with aluminum sheath, I have seen advertising for these fittings but haven't used them.

so far all I see that I don't like is the set screws on the fittings in picture 2 appear to extend into space where the drywall will be placed.
Any other violations if they exist are going to be technical listing applications of a specific fitting, the box or the mud ring.

 

[George Stolz]

Here are some relevant things I found around the job site on the topic...

 

[George Stolz]

Also, this is all the same box, same supports.



Little backstory (short on time): I walked onto a job after recently completing a powerpoint for a grounding and bonding class for school, which I mentioned MCAP in. I hadn't had a chance to use it until a couple days ago. In the class I point out the popular 38AST and 3838AST are not listed with MCAP.

A lot of people say, "Code is a minimum standard," and then in the next breath say, "Do you think the inspector will catch it?" In this case, the foreman immediately ordered the fittings replaced, despite a pending inspection, which profoundly impressed me. When the inspector walked in and found us rapidly swapping out the fittings as we made up the boxes, he took it in the vein it was intended: we don't intend to get away with anything here.

He signed a partial for the completed work, and said he'd return when the work was complete.

 

[paul]

The Arlington 3838ST fitting shown in picture #1 is not approved as a listed HCF fitting.

Southwire approved HCF fittings

 

[pjholguin]

So if I understand correctly, both pictures have connector violations.
Did you have to add the cable clamp for support also? The reason I ask is
in both pictures, you can use the scaffold as reference, and it appears that
in picture 1the support is not there. Just an observation.

Also, this is all the same box, same supports.



Little backstory (short on time): I walked onto a job after recently completing a powerpoint for a grounding and bonding class for school, which I mentioned MCAP in. I hadn't had a chance to use it until a couple days ago. In the class I point out the popular 38AST and 3838AST are not listed with MCAP.

A lot of people say, "Code is a minimum standard," and then in the next breath say, "Do you think the inspector will catch it?" In this case, the foreman immediately ordered the fittings replaced, despite a pending inspection, which profundly impressed me. When the inspector walked in and found us rapidly swapping out the fittings as we made up the boxes, he took it in the vein it was intended: we don't intend to get away with anything here.

He signed a partial for the completed work, and said he'd return when the work was complete.

 

[George Stolz]

So if I understand correctly, both pictures have connector violations.
Did you have to add the cable clamp for support also? The reason I ask is
in both pictures, you can use the scaffold as reference, and it appears that
in picture 1the support is not there. Just an observation.

No, just the snap-in is wrong. The one with the clamp (and looking through Southwire's list, most connectors with clamps) are ok.

The support was there the whole time, sorry I didn't get it in the first picture. I don't think I screwed a single CJ in, but was thankful when they were there instead of one-holes. Much easier to unlock and relock.

Also, the twisted AL conductors were snipped off as we went, as it was easier to install without (and several stab connectors could not be salvaged due to that conductor getting snagged on the fingers inside the connectors).

 

[iwire]

The support was there the whole time,

Nope, I can tell by counting the dimples in the metal stud.

















<JK>

 

[GoldDigger]

Nope, I can tell by counting the dimples in the metal stud.

<JK>

I get 29 to the top of one pic and 38 to the bracket in the other. You lose.....

 

[kwired]

The Arlington 3838ST fitting shown in picture #1 is not approved as a listed HCF fitting.

Southwire approved HCF fittings

Arlington claims it is acceptable for use with HCF cable

http://www.aimedia.co/media/spec-sheets/38AST.pdf

But apparently Southwire doesn't recognize that particular connector as acceptable with their MC-AP product line.

Kind of like the classified breaker issue if you ask me.

 

[jackwilson]

Well really difficult to get solution after checking pics. Any expert will help.

 

[liquidtite]

The last 2 jobs I've been on were roughed in with the same hospital grade mc .

And we used the same snap on connectors And everything passed this was in nj.

 

[kwired]

The last 2 jobs I've been on were roughed in with the same hospital grade mc .

And we used the same snap on connectors And everything passed this was in nj.

That doesn't mean your inspector caught every fine detail like what come up in this thread. Someone makes him aware a particular fitting isn't listed for the application and next time he fails you even if everything is nearly the same as the last install.

 

[George Stolz]

That doesn't mean your inspector caught every fine detail like what come up in this thread. Someone makes him aware a particular fitting isn't listed for the application and next time he fails you even if everything is nearly the same as the last install.

...and frankly, a factor that weighed on the decision to begin fixing before the inspector got there was that it would be a lot bigger PITA to replace the fittings after makeup, than replacing the fittings and making up once.

The last 2 jobs I've been on were roughed in with the same hospital grade mc .

And we used the same snap on connectors And everything passed this was in nj.

Kinda makes you wonder what else you do wrong and get away with, doesn't it?

 

[liquidtite]

Well we never had to take out all the connectors on our job and waste man hours .
But thanks for the heads up . Now I now for next time

 

[George Stolz]

 

[sandsnow]

3838AST are listed for use with MC-AP. Connector has MCI-A rating in UL directory. The EGS connectors are also MCI-A rated. Even states it on the box. So unless you have a cable size discrepancy (outside of specified range), both look ok.
Although Southwire tries to be helpful with the chart, Southwire is not the final word. When MC-AP first came out as MC-Smart, there were few connectors with a MCI-A listing. Installers and inspectors were confused as to the correct connector. Now it is the opposite. Everybody has a MC connector(s) that is listed for MCI-A.

I do not know of a separate/additional listing for use with HCF. Anyone point out something here (besides the application chart)? Even the MC-AP HCF tag says to use just a MCI-A connector.

Arlington's info from the UL directory:

AWSX.E18304
Armored Cable Connectors, Type AC

ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES INC	E18304
1 STAUFFER INDUSTRIAL PARK
SCRANTON, PA 18517-9601 USA

For aluminum interlocking grounding metal clad cable Type
MCIA, Cat. Nos.
38A,
38AST,
3838,
3838A,
3838AST,
40A,
40AST,
4040A,
4040AST,
5010 AST,
840,
840A,
840ST,
8400,
8400ST,
850,
850A,
851.

Even UL and the manufacturer of the connector cannot get it straight. Check out the difference in the cable ranges on the EGS connectors. Probably doesn't affect the rotation of the planet, but just interesting trivia.

On the box it reads 0.385 - 0.510

In the UL directory it reads:
For aluminum metal-clad interlocking armor cable Type (MCI-A), Cat. No.
AMC-50, cable diameter in. min. 0.406, max. 0.512.

 

[kwired]

3838AST are listed for use with MC-AP. Connector has MCI-A rating in UL directory. The EGS connectors are also MCI-A rated. Even states it on the box. So unless you have a cable size discrepancy (outside of specified range), both look ok.
Although Southwire tries to be helpful with the chart, Southwire is not the final word. When MC-AP first came out as MC-Smart, there were few connectors with a MCI-A listing. Installers and inspectors were confused as to the correct connector. Now it is the opposite. Everybody has a MC connector(s) that is listed for MCI-A.

I do not know of a separate/additional listing for use with HCF. Anyone point out something here (besides the application chart)? Even the MC-AP HCF tag says to use just a MCI-A connector.

Arlington's info from the UL directory:

AWSX.E18304
Armored Cable Connectors, Type AC

ARLINGTON INDUSTRIES INC	E18304
1 STAUFFER INDUSTRIAL PARK
SCRANTON, PA 18517-9601 USA

For aluminum interlocking grounding metal clad cable Type
MCIA, Cat. Nos.
38A,
38AST,
3838,
3838A,
3838AST,
40A,
40AST,
4040A,
4040AST,
5010 AST,
840,
840A,
840ST,
8400,
8400ST,
850,
850A,
851.

Even UL and the manufacturer of the connector cannot get it straight. Check out the difference in the cable ranges on the EGS connectors. Probably doesn't affect the rotation of the planet, but just interesting trivia.

On the box it reads 0.385 - 0.510

In the UL directory it reads:
For aluminum metal-clad interlocking armor cable Type (MCI-A), Cat. No.
AMC-50, cable diameter in. min. 0.406, max. 0.512.

I remember looking into them a while back as I was wanting to confirm myself for an installation that what I was using was acceptable. I recall determining the 38AST and others in that line were acceptable, just wasn't finding that info when earlier replying to this thread. In particular I wasn't finding the MCI-A rating on any Arlington pages I happened to visit, but I also find some of the marketing type pages are not always completely accurate with such details. You usually can't go wrong with product listing detail information though.