300.5 Underground Installations - Concrete Encased Conduit?

[jot30]

Wanted to get some others interpretations of concrete encased conduit for branch circuits. I have always interpreted and installed conduit under indoor commercial foot traffic only slabs, based on NEC 300.5. Thereby installing it so it would have the cover of a 4" slab and meet 300.5 under building "0" depth, but recently was told by a former coworker that when Encased in concrete there is no minimum cover required.
Under driveways and parking garages we would also follow table 300.5 based on conduit type.

Searching the forum and other posts it seems to support no minimum burial depth for concrete encased conduit.

First is it correct that there isn't a cover requirement when embedded in concrete.

And second does it mean you could embed conduit in a driveway or road pour without any minimum cover required.

For conduit protection purposes my interpretation of 300.5 always made sense

 

[augie47]

Most areas I have worked enforce the "Zero" depth requirements in 300.5 for "Under a Building" apply although structural design often requires a minimum cover. (ie: no 2" PVC in a 4" slab)
Under those areas not "under a building" such as driveways, the applicable 300.5 depth applies (24" under driveways, etc)

 

[jot30]

Most areas I have worked enforce the "Zero" depth requirements in 300.5 for "Under a Building" apply although structural design often requires a minimum cover. (ie: no 2" PVC in a 4" slab)
Under those areas not "under a building" such as driveways, the applicable 300.5 depth applies (24" under driveways, etc)

Thanks for the reply!...that's what we have always followed without inspection issues, but then thought maybe I was interpreting the code incorrectly.

 

[petersonra]

IMO, if it is embedded in concrete table 300.5 does not apply.

 

[augie47]

IMO, if it is embedded in concrete table 300.5 does not apply.

even under a drive ??

 

[petersonra]

even under a drive ??

You want to embed it in concrete under the drive?

 

[augie47]

I apparently misinterpreted your post thinking you meant 300.5 would not apply to conduit embedded in concrete eve if it were a drive.

 

[petersonra]

I apparently misinterpreted your post thinking you meant 300.5 would not apply to conduit embedded in concrete eve if it were a drive.

Would you consider something embedded in concrete that is at the surface to be underground? I don't. There is no ground to be under.

 

[jot30]

I apparently misinterpreted your post thinking you meant 300.5 would not apply to conduit embedded in concrete eve if it were a drive.

Sorry I missed the responses....I thought the comments ended. Augie...I always interpreted 300.5's intent was protection against conduit damage and ultimately damage to conductors. So, is your interpretation that as long as conduit is embedded in concrete it meets code. So to take it to an extreme example on an airport runway you could embed the conduit and it would meet code.