When is a service conductor inside a building

[david]

So how do you, personally, keep service risers outside of the building? Do you maintain 18" of dirt all the way up to the meter socket? Do you build a concrete chase up the side of the building to the top of the mast?

it?s clear that you cannot pass unprotected under a building, or 230.6 is mute. How do you apply 230.6 and when do you determine you are passing under a building?
I read many comments here in other threads that when you brake the plain of the building footprint you must provide a service rated disconnect.

 

[Bjenks]

it?s clear that you cannot pass unprotected under a building, or 230.6 is mute. How do you apply 230.6 and when do you determine you are passing under a building?
I read many comments here in other threads that when you brake the plain of the building footprint you must provide a service rated disconnect.

Down here we can have a stem wall filled with dirt and a slab on top. The contractor will go through the stem wall and not be considered inside the building because it is under 2" of concrete. If you look at 230.6 (1) it never says anything about dirt, length of conduit, supports, or can't be seen. It just says where installed under not less than 2" of concrete beneath a building or other structure. I personally believe this is about fire protection of the building (2" concrete) and not about getting shocked because of exposed conduit damage. There are all types of exposed service conduit from transformers to power coming down a pole to coming up at meters. If we are worried about damage we just put bollards out or a fence.

 

[david]

So it seems to come back to when you cross into (break) the footprint of the building you provide protection 230.6 (1)-(4) or provide protection in the form of a service disconnect.
So the issue is more on the lines of this passed plan review and the permit process. Well the international (ICC) codes do not take that approach. A correction is allowed no matter if it was missed in plan examination. In Pa our stamps no longer say approved but rather examined for code compliance.
Others are arguing that this line of reasoning is wrong because service conductors are allowed to be exposed and in contact with the building under normal installation practices.
I just don’t think the inspector is way off base in his understanding that this is not considered out side by the NEC.

 

[kwired]

What kind of house "requires" 800 amps?

Read the OP, apparently that particular install has one, can't tell you what his load calc is to verify it needed to be 800 amps.

Not that I have ever worked in any, but you get into some of the large mansions and I just can't see there being any limit to how much power may be needed. I could even see potential advantages for 480/277 services in some of these as it may be better way to power some of the mechanical load and then transform to 120/240 for some of the general lighting loads.

 

[charlie b]

So it seems to come back to when you cross into (break) the footprint of the building you provide protection 230.6 (1)-(4) or provide protection in the form of a service disconnect.

Nothing in the code speaks of breaking the plane of the footprint of the building. It says that the disconnecting means must be either outside or inside nearest the point of entry. It does not define outside versus inside in terms of the footprint. I would distinguish outside versus inside in terms of penetrating a floor, wall, or ceiling surface. In the case of a house on a crawl space, if the conduit penetrates the wall at a point within the crawl space, I would say it is now inside. But for a house on stilts, you are outside until you penetrate the floor.

 

[zbang]

But for a house on stilts, you are outside until you penetrate the floor.

I'm with Charlie on this. Although the OP doesn't say how tall the under-space is, I think there was mention of being able to park a car there, and if the space is not enclosed at all, it's hard to consider it "inside".

 

[ggunn]

for a house on stilts, you are outside until you penetrate the floor.

There you go again, using common sense to interpret the NEC.

 

[chicar]

What I get from reading 230 is the service wire is overhead, underground, or concealed in concrete with this installation is neither. The service wires are in exposed conduit under a house 9 ft above the ground with no earth or concrete surrounding it. Violation.

 

[charlie b]

I don't agree. This is an underground installation. There is nothing that says that you have to stay underground until you penetrate into the building. What about a service that leaves the ground just outside the foundation, then is run upwards along the wall, and hits the meter/disconnect? What about (as in my home's installation) a service that runs overhead to a mast, then is run in conduit downwards along the outside wall, and hits the meter? I see no violation in either case. The present discussion is an underground service that leaves the ground, runs in conduit along the outside surfaces, and penetrates into the building before hitting the disconnecting means. I see no violation here either.

 

[eHunter]

Inside is within the envelope of the structure.
Everything is outside of the structure until it penetrates the structure enevelope.
On the roof is above or over the structure not in it.
Under the structure is below the structure not in it.

 

[GoldDigger]

Inside is within the envelope of the structure.
Everything is outside of the structure until it penetrates the structure enevelope.
On the roof is above or over the structure not in it.
Under the structure is below the structure not in it.

Thank you for triggering a minor revelation in my aching head.
The code sections about being outside the building when buried in a suitable amount of dirt or concrete "beneath" the building seem to be based on the idea that if they are above the concrete slab or in the concrete slab, they are inside the envelope and need to be at a minimum depth. Similarly, the earth under a crawl space is also considered part of the building envelope until you get far enough down into it.

But by no stretch should that same argument cover the ground under the free air space of an elevated building.
The service conductors to a forestry lookout would have to be on the outside surface of the support posts of the tower rather than the inside surface, and if the deck of the lookout extended beyond the perimeter of the tower, you would have to use an aerial cable only, from the nearest tree.

 

[eHunter]

Thank you for triggering a minor revelation in my aching head.
The code sections about being outside the building when buried in a suitable amount of dirt or concrete "beneath" the building seem to be based on the idea that if they are above the concrete slab or in the concrete slab, they are inside the envelope and need to be at a minimum depth. Similarly, the earth under a crawl space is also considered part of the building envelope until you get far enough down into it.

But by no stretch should that same argument cover the ground under the free air space of an elevated building.
The service conductors to a forestry lookout would have to be on the outside surface of the support posts of the tower rather than the inside surface, and if the deck of the lookout extended beyond the perimeter of the tower, you would have to use an aerial cable only, from the nearest tree.

Is it code compliant to attach messenger cable to a tree? :angel:

 

[GoldDigger]

Is it code compliant to attach messenger cable to a tree? :angel:

OK, install a power pole next to the tree. I was getting careless.

 

[eHunter]

OK, install a power pole next to the tree. I was getting careless.

Forgive me, I could not resist.

 

[kwired]

I don't agree. This is an underground installation. There is nothing that says that you have to stay underground until you penetrate into the building. What about a service that leaves the ground just outside the foundation, then is run upwards along the wall, and hits the meter/disconnect? What about (as in my home's installation) a service that runs overhead to a mast, then is run in conduit downwards along the outside wall, and hits the meter? I see no violation in either case. The present discussion is an underground service that leaves the ground, runs in conduit along the outside surfaces, and penetrates into the building before hitting the disconnecting means. I see no violation here either.

A service cable or raceway can also run for unlimited distances on the exterior wall of a structure but limitations begin as soon as it penetrates the wall and becomes "interior". One could hit a meter socket on one corner of a building and wrap the building multiple times with service cable or raceway ( would need pulling ells or junction boxes every 360 deg of bends with raceways of course) and then put the service disconnect right next to the meter socket and be code compliant.

 

[david]

Nothing in the code speaks of breaking the plane of the footprint of the building. It says that the disconnecting means must be either outside or inside nearest the point of entry. It does not define outside versus inside in terms of the footprint. I would distinguish outside versus inside in terms of penetrating a floor, wall, or ceiling surface. In the case of a house on a crawl space, if the conduit penetrates the wall at a point within the crawl space, I would say it is now inside. But for a house on stilts, you are outside until you penetrate the floor.

I was referring to passing under a building. Outside in the sense if you do not provide protection in the form of a service disconnect. If running the service conductors under this portion of the building is defined as passing under the building then you need to install the conductors protected in a way that they can be defined as outside. How do you define this portion of the building. Are you under the building? Do you have to be in soil before you are defined aas passing under a building?

 

[david]

I agree with you I would define this as outside. However I would also agree that this is under the dwelling. I think 230.6 is intended to provide conditions to define conductors out-side when they otherwise may have been defined inside or passing under a buildings foundation. The inspector in this case is saying this is not one of the conditions in 230.6 and these are passing under the building. I personally think these are outside and do not need to meet one of the conditions in 230.6 to be defined that way.

We always look for definitions to hang our hat on. Outside is assumed to be self defining in relationship to a building.

 

[north star]

: = :

Bjenks,

Have you spoken with the County Building Official, or County
Administrator about the inspector's request to relocate the
disconnect, ...that it was approved by plans review?
Suggest a telephone call to [ possibly ] assist your cause.

: = :

 

[chicar]

The service is running underneath the house from the meter with no protection other than the conduit its installed in over a carport with no over current or fault protection. What happens if that conduit gets damaged ? No sufficient protection of service as the code states. Violation.

 

[GoldDigger]

The service is running underneath the house from the meter with no protection other than the conduit its installed in over a carport with no over current or fault protection. What happens if that conduit gets damaged ? No sufficient protection of service as the code states. Violation.

I guess a fair question to ask is whether the risk to the building and occupants is greater if the service in conduit is underneath the house versus attached to the side of the house. And, of course, whether something which is above the house also breaks the footprint of the house, which I would find questionable.
Then you can ask how far below the house is still a threat to the house. 6 feet of open air? 20 feet of open air? Unlimited?

I do agree that attached to a support beam directly supporting the floor structure is for many risk scenarios "inside" the house, even more than it would be if attached to a side wall. But in the OP's case it is also not exposed to damage.

One of those situations that make you think twice about how to write the rules.