ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 263 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#119462 01/03/05 02:56 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Bob,
I think that there is a violation. Look at 800.48.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
#119463 01/03/05 04:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 119
S
Member
I agree with Don... communication conductors have to be installed in accordance with the methods prescribed for the raceway... when they are installed in a raceway.

Just as everyone else... I see a lot hack jobs on communication wiring. [Linked Image]

BTW. 800.48 has been renumbered in the 2005 NEC. It is now 800.110. But... I assumed that this was installed before the first of the year. [Linked Image]

#119464 01/03/05 05:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Don & Safety

I am not sure I follow you.

800.48 basically states if you use conduit it must be installed per chapter 3.

300.15(C) would allow this with the addition of a fitting to protect the cable from abrasion.

Not saying I like this or that I work like that.

Bob


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#119465 01/03/05 06:17 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 119
S
Member
I'm not actually saying (personally) that the conduit has to be continuous. I'm saying that it was not installed as you pointed out in accordance with 300.

Granted... I am making some assumptions here... but, looking at the picture (although from this distance its hard to tell) I don't see that a fitting has been attached in accordance with 300.15(F). If the fitting is/was there... I would have to let it go... as ugly as it might be to look at. [Linked Image]

#119466 01/03/05 07:58 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Bob,
What about 358.30? 300.12? 300.18(A)? I don't see the conduit in the picture as a short section providing protection for the cables, I see it as an incomplete raceway system.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
#119467 01/03/05 08:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Don

358.30 - From what I can see it complies.

300.12 - As I said before add a fitting and 300.15(C) eliminates the need for a box at all.

300.18(A) - as no boxes are required we have a complete raceway between each end.

We often run conduits for the tel data guys from one LAN room to the other. At each end will be just a bushing.

I don't see this (if bushings where added) as being any different.

Just a lot uglier. [Linked Image] ours are usually 4" and run in parallel on strut racks.

Bob


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#119468 01/03/05 11:31 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Bob,
I still see it as a "incomplete" raceway system. I think the conduit runs are more than "short sections" to provide cable protection.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
#119469 01/04/05 06:13 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Good Morning Don we can certainly agree to disagree. [Linked Image]

I don't like how that looks anyway. [Linked Image]

I do have a question.

Quote
I think the conduit runs are more than "short sections" to provide cable protection.

Where are we told they have to be short sections?

IMO 300.12 would be complied with if fittings where installed on the ends of the raceway as boxes are not required per 300.15(C) regardless of length.

If we do not need boxes just what is a complete raceway system?

10' of raceway with a fitting on both ends and two supports would be a complete raceway system in this case.

I am guessing the ambiguity here comes from the fact Chapter 3 was not really written with Article 800 in mind.

Good talking with you.

Bob

[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 01-04-2005).]


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#119470 01/04/05 12:46 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Bob,
I'm looking at 358.30 and 300.10.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
#119471 01/04/05 09:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 17
W
Member
Shoddy (un)workmanship, period. All of the datacom statements of work I've seen include words like "plumb", "continuous", and "uniform appearance throughout".

And yes, the data/telecom guys are supposed to follow NEC. Here's quotes from ANSI/TIA/EIA-569A (Commercial Building Standard for Telecommunications Pathways and Spaces).

Quote
4.4.2.1 Minimum requirements
Minimum requirements for installed conduits, such as support, end protection, and continuity, are found in appropriate electrical codes.

And the most blatant violation of all:
Quote
4.4.3.3 Pull strings
Pull string or rope shall be placed in installed conduits,

James

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5