Conduit Requirements

[Chad Pasquini]

All, need a little help, when is nm cable required to be in conduit in a commercial setting, code sections would be very helpful. CEC.

 

[cda]

When required by the AHJ. Not sure it is required

 

[steveray]

Protection from damage would be the only reason I could think of....but THHN pulls much easier.....In other, words never pull NM through conduit. Not that it is not allowed, it's just dumb.

 

[north star]

+ & + & +



Chad,

Not sure of the CEC Articles, but in the `14 Edition of the NEC,

Article 334.12(B) requires NM to be in conduit to provide "protection

from physical damage".

As **cda** mentioned, the AHJ may have some type of requirement

in their Ordinances.........Recommend that you contact the AHJ in

question and ask for specifics.

+ & + & +

 

[ICE]

+ & + & +

Chad,

Not sure of the CEC Articles, but in the `14 Edition of the NEC,

Article 334.12(B) requires NM to be in conduit to provide "protection

from physical damage".



+ & + & +

The code used to allow "or other approved means". I don't have a copy with me but if that's still the case, then NM isn't required to be in conduit anywhere in the NEC.

 

[Chad Pasquini]

Thanks North Star and Iceman

 

[north star]

= : & : =



**ICE**, ...possibly this Article ?

From `14 NEC, Article 90.4 - Enforcement:

"This Code is intended to be suitable for mandatory application by government

bodies that exercise legal jurisdiction over electrical installations, including

signalling and communications systems, and for use by insurance inspectors.

The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the

responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the

approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission

contemplated in a number of the rules.

By special permission, the authority having jurisdiction may waive specific

requirements in this Code or permit alternative methods where it is assured

that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining

effective safety.

This Code may require new products, constructions, or materials that may

not yet be available at the time the Code is adopted..........In such event,

the authority having jurisdiction may permit the use of the products,

constructions, or materials that comply with the most recent previous

edition of this Code adopted by the jurisdiction."

FWIW, ...also "thanks" to **steveray** for his input !

= : & : =

 

[cda]

+ & + & +

Chad,

Not sure of the CEC Articles, but in the `14 Edition of the NEC,

Article 334.12(B) requires NM to be in conduit to provide "protection

from physical damage".

As **cda** mentioned, the AHJ may have some type of requirement

in their Ordinances.........Recommend that you contact the AHJ in

question and ask for specifics.

+ & + & +

I have heard about the union conduit rule in some areas

 

[north star]

@ ~ ~ @

**cda**,

O.K., ...I'm curious........What is the "union conduit rule" of which

you mentioned ?

@ ~ ~ @

 

[Chad Pasquini]

More time, more parts = more money

 

[cda]

http://ths.gardenweb.com/discussions/2652534/please-help-code-violation ;;;;

After Checking with my fellow electrician friends in Skokie Ill. It is STILL code in Chicago as well as many communities to only allow conduit or other metallic clad methods. There are two popular sets of rumors floating around as to why. O ne story says it is still fear from the great Chicago Fire and the other says a strong union influence as conduit is more labor intensive. Either way ou will find very few good electricians who will dispute the fact that metallic clad wiring (Especially conduit) is a far safer and superior wiring method. – Eric Long Apr 25 '14 at 19:09

http://www.ifinishedmybasement.com/wiring-a-basement/metal-conduit-1/

 

[mstehlin]

NEC 334.10(3) NM Allowed in construction type III, IV and V if concealed behind 15 minute thermal barrier.

NEC 334.10(5) NM Allowed in construction type I and II when installed in raceways