PVC conduit

[mikehughes8]

Is all PVC conduit that is exposed considered to be "subject to damage" thus requiring Schedule 80 PVC. In my case the PVC protects USE cable as it emerges from grade and connects to service equipment. In my view, although exposed it is unlikely that the conduit / cable will become damaged.

Thanks in advance

 

[480sparky]

352.10(F) allows it.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

Is all PVC conduit that is exposed considered to be "subject to damage" thus requiring Schedule 80 PVC. In my case the PVC protects USE cable as it emerges from grade and connects to service equipment. In my view, although exposed it is unlikely that the conduit / cable will become damaged.

Thanks in advance

352.10(F) allows it.

As 480 said the NEC specifically says that not ALL sched 40 PVC exposed is subject to physical damage. But a lot of the inspectors, I notice, consider it to be. Unfortunately it is subjective and they are covering their....job. Sure there may not seem to be any immeadiate threat of physical damage but what if......

You never know where a failed satelite might come down and land right on your service...

In my personal very humble opinion there should be an obvious threat to the conduit to play the physical damage card.... but admittedly, not many folk agree with me.

 

[peter d]

We always use 40 in my area. I've never once heard of anyone considering this "subject to damage" here and thankfully inspectors agree.

 

[cowboyjwc]

We always use 40 in my area. I've never once heard of anyone considering this "subject to damage" here and thankfully inspectors agree.

You obviously don't have a crazy dog. I ran some down the wall just to protect the wires going to my sprikler valves. I don't know how he did it, but somehow it's broken in two spots.

I don't care what it says, PVC is not sunlight resistent. I broke my own rule of running EMT above ground, which I've always done.

 

[JohnJ0906]

I don't care what it says, PVC is not sunlight resistent. I broke my own rule of running EMT above ground, which I've always done.

IMO, neither is UF.
I demoed an exposed run of UF, where the UV had burned through the outside jacket, and the conductors were exposed. It was marked, "Sunlight resistant" (I thought I had a picture, but I don't, sorry)

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Until the code decides to define "subject to physical damage" it is my opinion that if you can see it, it is subject to physical damage.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

You all realize there is a difference between sunlight proof and sunlight resistant. It is resistant to UV but not foolproof. UV light will break down PVC esp. in areas like southern beaches where the sun is unbearable.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Until the code decides to define "subject to physical damage" it is my opinion that if you can see it, it is subject to physical damage.

Boy am I glad you are not an inspector.

 

[480sparky]

Until the code decides to define "subject to physical damage" it is my opinion that if you can see it, it is subject to physical damage.

How about the 2" PVC feeding this house?

 

[cowboyjwc]

You all realize there is a difference between sunlight proof and sunlight resistant. It is resistant to UV but not foolproof. UV light will break down PVC esp. in areas like southern beaches where the sun is unbearable.

Oh I understand, it's like waterproof, most things aren't, they are simply water resistant. It's just that this PVC only lasted about two years. Of course here in So Cal we get about 300 days a year of sunshine.

 

[220/221]

"subject to physical damage" = "subject to interpetation"

Wether you can see it or not, EVERYTHING is "subject to physical damage"

Schedule 40 does fine in the sun here. I'll stub it up but I won't run it too far because it looks like hell...not straight enough..