Working Group 14-1 met on Monday, May 15, 2000 with 7 members and guests present. Chairman Keith Petty (SWEC) k.a.petty@ieee.org and vice-chairman John Merando (Bechtel) j.e.merando@ieee.org were unable to attend the meeting, which was conducted by Chris Durland of BICCGeneral in their absence.

The acting chairman reported the status of the re-affirmation, as initiated by John Merando, of IEEE 1185-1994, "The Guide for Installation Methods for Generating Station Cables". The re-affirmation ballot of IEEE 1185 passed by 100% affirmative votes (no negative votes) with approximately 93% of the ballots being returned Affirmative, and 88% of the Ballot Group voting affirmative. The next step in the re-affirmation process is a review by IEEE-SA Standards Board, which meets June 13-15, 2000. The paperwork was submitted to IEEE Standards Department RevCom Secretary by the vice chairman on April 5, 2000. Among the 37 Affirmative ballot votes, there were 3 people who voted affirmative with comments. Copies of balloter’s comments were distributed at the meeting and discussed. The acting chair volunteered to locate supportive info regarding the cable jamming comment. Volunteers were asked to undertake the investigation of conduit sizes referenced globally for the revising of Tables 3b, 4b, 5b, 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b, 10b, 11b, 12b, 13b, 14b, and 16 to show actual metric conduit sizes. The values in the tables do not appear to correlate with standard available sizes. Chris presented the "Metric Designator", Table 40 from the CEC, as an example. Change all "a" tables to include an additional column for the metric size, and eliminate "b" tables, was a suggestion from the group.

At past working group meetings the vertical cable support matrix project has been discussed and an updated version, as provided by J. Merando, was distributed to the members/guests via e-mail and/or hard copy for the meeting.

At our November 1999 meeting, the group identified seven items that should be incorporated to help understand or resolve inconsistencies in the table. J. Merando has implemented the following four of the seven items into the new table that was distributed including:

• Note 3 and the Column K (formerly "I") associated with Note 3 were deleted.
• Column "G", Conductor Area in circular mils was revised to remove the copper contributions from ground and drain wires.
• Thermocouple cables were deleted from the table.
• New Column K (Minimum cable trained Bend radius based on NEC) was added. Note 9 was added to explain how NEC Sections 300-34 and 336-16 were applied to obtain the minimum bend radius values.

Upon review of the matrix by the group certain anomalies, ie: non logical support length values, were found that brought up questions not answerable. It was determined that we need a list of all formulas, as well as a brief statement on each about the source, to be used for correlation. Kent Brown suggested that we all look for additional references (old/new) for the standard to be included in the next revision. Each of the members present volunteered to take a section and verify, if possible, that the values could be realistic. We need to pursue the impact of continuous sidewall pressure on various designs/vertical support length. Our vice chairman feels that before an expansion of the vertical support table should be undertaken to include basket grips (Kellum), etc, the current information must be more thoroughly reviewed and agreed upon. Chris shared John's requests with all in attendance. By e-mail all members of the committee will again be asked to review the formulas, assumptions, and results and provide comments and feedback regarding what is already shown. Kent will look into the functionality of the reflector site for 1185 to facilitate the process. The group used the entire 1 1/2 hours allocated.

Working Group D5W met on Monday, October 30, 2000 from 10:30 am to 12 noon with 12 members and 6 guests present. Chairman, John Merando led the group, and thanked Mr. Chris Durland for filling in during his absence at the Spring 2000 ICC meeting. The agenda for this meeting included two items: status of re-affirmation ballot and the vertical cable support matrix.

Status of Reaffirmation of IEEE 1185

The chairman reported that IEEE 1185-1994 entitled "The Guide for Installation Methods for Generating Station Cables" has been reaffirmed and a two-page errata sheet has been added, correcting the three typos that were identified during the balloting process. (The errata sheets are attached for reference.) The chairman also thanked all members of the committee and all IEEE members who voted on this document.

The meeting continued with a discussion of some other comments received during the balloting process from Mr. Stan Howell and Mr. John Merando. Since these comments were not typos, they are being discussed today for inclusion in the minutes and for future consideration when the first revision to IEEE 1185 is made.

Comment #1 from Stan Howell concerns Section 9.2b, which states, "When performing a pullby where there will be three cables of the same size in the conduit following the pull, the cables should not be within the critical jam ratio." His comment is that "It is not necessary for three cables in a conduit to be the same size for a jam to occur. Any three cables in a conduit can jam regardless of their respective sizes as long as the sum of the three diameters approaches the inside diameter of the conduit." The chairman asked: "Does anyone have any practical experience that would support or refute Stan Howell’s s comment?" Mr. Larry Kelly stated that it was unlikely that any three cables (not of the same OD) would jam, when going around a bend due to the un-likelihood that the center line of the three cables would be in line and due to the probability that the larger cable would dominate the bend. The committee was asked to consider this comment when working on the revision to IEEE 1185.

Comment #2 from Stan Howell concerns references that are out of date, such as IEEE 422, which has been withdrawn. The question is whether IEEE 1185 should make reference to a withdrawn and possibly obsolete document? The committee was asked to consider this comment when working on the revision to IEEE 1185.

Comment #3 from Stan Howell concerns a practice of listing the year of a reference only once within the document in the reference clause only. The general consensus of the committee was that this was a good idea and should be done when IEEE 1185 is revised.

Comment #4 from Stan Howell concerned several grammatical errors throughout the entire document, but were not specifically identified. The chairman acknowledged that there may be some grammatical errors and requested that anyone who finds an editorial correction or grammatical error to please point it out to the chairman with suggested rewording for incorporation into the revision of IEEE 1185.

Comment #5 from John Merando concerns the applicability of metric units to the tables within IEEE 1185. As shown in IEEE 1185, the metric tables are a soft conversion of the actual conduit sizes used in the USA. Even though the soft metric conversion satisfies the current metrification edict, the tables are not practical as these conduit sizes do not really exist. It is the chairman’s opinion that the metric tables should reflect conduit sizes available for purchase in Europe and other places where metric (SI) units are prevalent. Mr. Chris Durland suggested that IEEE 1185 could be revised to correspond with the draft NEC NFPA 70, which uses a metric designator to identify the conduit trade size. (See attached page for information.) The committee was asked to consider this approach during the revision to IEEE 1185.

Another approach to resolving the metrification concern raised in Comment #5 was discussed by the chairman. The response from IEEE headquarters, to a negative ballot on another ICC document, identified that the IEEE metric coordinator has allowed three approaches to the metrification directive. These are: a hard metric conversion, a soft metric conversion, and an exclusion of metric units. The exclusion of metric units approach was explained to the chairman as used where USA/English or UK/English units of measure are predominant; and the product is not typically manufactured, used and/or performed in locations where metric units are predominant. Under these circumstances, there is no benefit to having metric units as a primary or secondary reference. The chairman requested that this committee consider whether the "exclusion of metric units" approach is valid for IEEE 1185. It was also noted that as of January 1, 2000, the IEEE headquarters requires that IEEE documents use metric units exclusively and discontinue the practice of providing English or metric units in parenthesis.

Vertical Cable Support Table

The second agenda item discussed at the meeting was the vertical cable support table that this committee has been discussing for the past several meetings. At the November1999 WG meeting, changes to the vertical support matrix made as a result of Steve Graham’s comments 1,2, & 5 were discussed. Discussion continued by reviewing Steve Graham’s comments 3, 4, & 6.

Comment #3 requests the basis for extrapolating Kerite guidance beyond 1/C and 3/C power cable configurations to control and instrument cables. Kerite literature does not specifically include or exclude control and instrument types but only discusses 1/C and 3/C configurations, which would imply that the guidance was meant for power cable configurations. At the time that the vertical support table was developed, repeating the formulas for control and instrument cable types was easy and seemed correct. The chairman asked, "Does any committee member have experience or test data to validate or invalidate the extrapolation of the formulas to control and instrument cable?" Discussion on this point led to a request by the chairman for each member to inquire within his company for information to support this extrapolation.

Comment #4 suggests several modifications to the vertical support table based on a 1997 version of the Kerite catalog. Even though an earlier version of the Kerite catalog data was used, comparison to the newer version did not make any significant changes the data produced.

The first modification suggested by Steve in Comment #4 is that "For trays or other flat surface bends, use one-half the values for appropriate conduit bends." If we consider column "O" as correct for conduit bends, then apply this criteria, we see that one-half of the values in column "O" are identical to the values of column "M" for the 1/C cable. For the 3/C power cable, control and instrument cable, the results of using half the appropriate conduit bend are lower by a factor of 2.

A second modification suggested by Steve Graham is to change the 3/C formula to use the O.D. of a 1/C conductor cable rather than the O.D. of a 3/C conductor cable. The three conductor cables modeled in the table are 3/C with an overall jacket - not a triplex cable. Since an overall jacket binds the three conductors together as one, and since it is the overall jacket that is in contact with a ty-wrap or Kellum grip, the use of the cable O.D. is correct in this case. The chairman noted that the table, as currently developed, does not have a triplex cable configuration, which in time may be added when the committee agrees on the values for the single conductor and 3/C with overall jacket cases. Therefore, at this time, there does not seem to be a need to change the table in Notes 5 or 6 as a result of this comment.

The third modification of Comment #4 suggests the removal of the words "and non-twisted" from Note 5, as cable manufacturers put a twist (called lay) in all cable configurations. The words "and non-twisted" were removed from Note 5 on the previous revision to the vertical cable support table, and these words do not appear now.

Steve Graham’s Comment #6 requests that if the vertical cable support information is included in IEEE 1185 that the information be in the form of a series of formulas with guidance as to how to use the formulas. The chairman pointed out that while engineers will generally prefer the formula approach, craft personnel will find the formulas and rules for application difficult to apply on the job. Also the original intent of this table was to give the craft an easy way to lookup and determine the maximum vertical support distances. The consensus of the committee was that the lookup table with formulas and rules at the end would be appropriate. However, this comment will be re-visited when the working group begins the actual document revision. Steve Graham was thanked for the comments he provided.

At the May 2000 WG meeting the acting chairman, Chris Durland, asked for volunteers to review parts of the vertical cable support table and provide comments. Since then, comments have been received from Chris Durland of BICC-General and Steve Sandberg of Rockbestos-Surprenant for the areas that they volunteered to review. Dave Mercier and Kent Brown are still reviewing their assigned sections: the medium voltage shielded power cables, and low voltage power and control cables respectively.

Chris Durland commented on the 5kV three conductor non-shielded cables as follows:

• Revised the insulation and jacket thickness on the 750 kcmil, 2/0 and 1/0 sizes (Column G).
• Revised the individual single conductor and overall cable OD on these seven items (Columns H & I).
• Revised the cable weight on these seven items (Column I).

As a result of these changes, the Maximum Vertical Height Supported by Conductor (Column M), and Minimum Cable Bend Radius (Column N) were revised.

Steve Sandberg commented on the instrumentation section of the Table are as follows:

• Revised the insulation thickness from 30 mils to 25 mils per ICEA (Column G).
• Revised the insulated single and cable OD based on the smaller insulation thickness (Columns H & I).
• Revised the cable weight accordingly (Column I).
• Revised the Minimum Bend Radius (Columns K & L).

As a result of these changes, the Maximum Vertical Height Supported by Conductor (Column M) and Minimum Cable Bend Radius (Column N) were revised.

Additionally, Steve has questioned the applicability of Notes 1 & 2 to instrument cables.

Mr. Larry Kelly again volunteered to review this latest spreadsheet and provide comments regarding assumptions and limitations of the methods being used.

The meeting was adjourned with a request for all working group members to review the assumptions and applicability of the formulas in the vertical cable support table, and provide feedback to the chairman before the next meeting