All this palaver about "internal" protections and "listing" requirements flies in the face of Article 430, which goes into motor loads. Similar provisions are found in the other nine "special cases.' The short version? A dedicated circuit is NOT a 'convenience circuit,' so you can't go by convenience circuit rules.
Maybe not the best example of "code minimum" being a code violation, but I think it illustrates how letting the codebook be your design guide (itself an Article 90 violation) can quickly lead you into violation.
As for collision protection ... yup, you got it. Article 110 says conductors SHALL be protected against mechanical damage. Nowhere does it say how you must do this- nor is it said anywhere the exact abuse a raceway is intended to defeat.
Bollards? Re-routing the line? Running the raceway within a run of structural tubing? That's your choice.
Yet I see the attitude often taken that "it's in an approved raceway and that's all I'm required to do." I disagree. Conductors are required to be protected. Existing damage is evidence that the original protection was inadequate. Thus, to return to my point, "code minimum" is, in fact, a violation.
I recently had a variation of this discussion with a shopkeeper. The feed to his street-side sign was in EMT, run through a shallow groove in his parking lot. Was this adequate? After all, no where does the code require the line to be buried at all.
I assert that, since his line has since been ripped out of the groove by traffic, the protection offered by the groove was not enough. I would point to this as proof that, in this instance, the line needs to be buried, etc.
His view is, of course, that the damage to the raceway is not a 'protection' problem, but a 'people' problem.
This recent discussion again underscores my assertion: Code "minimum" design is not only bad design, but is often a code violation. It just might take some time for the proof to show.
