ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area "Typical" Kitchen Appliances

Reno:
OK, now I see where you are going with this.

Yes, there are many instances of damaged raceways, be they EMT, Wiremold, PVC, and even RGC.

Site lighting 'repairs' are one I know. PVC (Sch 40) in the area that a string trimmer will kill it; NMFC also.

Wouldn't the argument in case of the EMT in a groove be that if anything is below grade it needs to be at code-specified burial depth? Would be 80 cm around here in case of surfaces used by heavy vehicles, e.g. streets, driveways and car parks. Either run it above groundor bury it properly.

PS: of course red could have been chosen as a phase colour. In fact in most European countries nothing prevents you from pulling a red phase conductor in conduit and in fact both the French and the Swiss regularly do so! The Austrian regs do ban red conductors in cables and cords but I'm not sure if that's even still valid (the same article also bans grey and that's definitely been required rather than banned since the early 2000s).

Actually in most countries the regs. don't cover phase colours at all, only a few colours are not to be used - yellow, green, yellow/green and blue (the latter except in systems where no neutral is present, until recently that used to be in cables or conduit runs where no neutral is present). The only definite reference is in the manufacturing standards for cords and cables.

Plus there are exceptions - cords and cables with more than four conductors have black numbered conductors that may also be used as neutral conductors and there is or was a special German 6-conductor cable with three blues IIRC.

Ranger, our code only specifies a burial depth IF the conduit is buried. We are allowed to run conduit on top of any surface.

When a conduit is exposed, our code does not specifically address what protection, if any, is required for the conduit.

When I first posted pics here of the conduit run in a shallow groove in the parking lot, it was admitted here that the installer had exploited a technicality.

Was it enough, to simply lay the conduit in a groove barely deep enough to lower the conduit below the surface of the parking lot? Well - at least for this case - time has proven that it was NOT enough. It's my opinion that the damage proves that additional protection (such as proper burial) is needed for this job.

As you might guess, the owner disagrees with me. Right now, he has the damaged conduit protected from traffic by concrete blocks; no one can drive there. It's the owners' position that simply patching the damaged section and putting some pavement over it will be sufficient.

Of course, covering the pipe makes it a buried pipe- so a proper depth is needed. The owner and I disagree on this point. I will ask the City to discuss this issue with the owner.

Ah, that fine point had evaded me!
Of course technically the conduit isn't buried in that case... but most people would probably agree it's not a good idea.