312.5(C) and Cables in Raceways

[wwhitney]

A hypothetical: say we have a cabinet, a raceway connected to it, and another enclosure at the end. So a complete raceway from enclosure to enclosure, not a sleeve. And for whatever reason we use the raceway to pull in a cable instead of individual conductors. The raceway is properly sized using the cable's equivalent circular area.

(1) For individual conductors, that would be the end of the story, with the conductors loose in the raceway and at the entrances to both enclosures, but does 312.5(C) require that the cable be secured to the cabinet? It doesn't have any language that I can see as an exception for the case of cable in conduit, it just says "Where cable is used, each cable shall be secured to the cabinet, cutout box, or meter socket enclosure." 312.5(C) exception is not material for this question, as it is a very specific allowance for a very specific geometry that is not met.

(2) If securing the cable to the cabinet is required, would a type 21S push mount cable tie suffice? Its use involves drilling a small (3/16" or 1/4") hole in the cabinet, pushing the mounting wings into the hole, and then the normal cable tie end:

https://new.abb.com/products/7TAG009530R0007/ty538m

Cheers, Wayne

PS Note that for Article 314 enclosures, I don't see any such issue in 314.17. For example, the last sentence of 314.17(B) on metal boxes says "Where raceway or cable is installed with metal boxes or conduit bodies, the raceway or cable shall be secured to such boxes and conduit bodies." Here it is reasonable to read the last "or" as meaning it is enough to secure either the raceway or the cable to the box, no need to secure both.

 

[LarryFine]

I was going to respond to this point in the other thread, but since you asked the specific question here:

I agree with you that a cable in an enclosure-to-enclosure conduit may be treated as single conductors.

 

[wwhitney]

I agree with you that a cable in an enclosure-to-enclosure conduit may be treated as single conductors.

I'm not sure that's my position--I would say that they should be allowed to be treated the same as single conductors, but that the current text of 312.5(C) does not allow that. So I'm wondering if a 2026 PI is in order.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I agree fastening the raceway or the cable should suffice so no need for a pi

 

[LarryFine]

I'm not sure that's my position--I would say that they should be allowed to be treated the same as single conductors, but that the current text of 312.5(C) does not allow that. So I'm wondering if a 2026 PI is in order.

Cheers, Wayne

In my opinion, it is permissible, and those sheath rules don't apply.

 

[wwhitney]

I agree fastening the raceway or the cable should suffice so no need for a pi

In my opinion, it is permissible, and those sheath rules don't apply.

Not following how it complies with 312.5(C), The cable isn't secured to the cabinet, I can push it and out of the conduit opening a bit (until friction or jamming stops the movement).

I was contemplating an argument along the lines of "the cable is secured to the conduit (or considered secured to the conduit), and the conduit is secured to the cabinet, so the cable is secured to the cabinet." Then I noted the language in 334.30 on "Securing and Supporting" NM, the last sentence of which is "Sections of cable protected from physical damage by raceway shall not be required to be secured within the raceway." Which is the opposite of saying that they are considered secured by the raceway. [Not that my original question was restricted to NM.]

Cheers, Wayne

 

[LarryFine]

Not following how it complies with 312.5(C), The cable isn't secured to the cabinet, I can push it and out of the conduit opening a bit (until friction or jamming stops the movement).

Same as with individual conductors.

"Doc, it hurts when I do this!"

"So, don't do that!"

 

[wwhitney]

Same as with individual conductors.

312.5(C) doesn't impose any requirements on individual conductors. It does on cables. They are not the same, 312.5(C) wise.

What am I missing, in the NEC, rather than what "should" be allowed?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tortuga]

we have a cabinet, a raceway connected to it, and another enclosure at the end. So a complete raceway from enclosure to enclosure, not a sleeve. And for whatever reason we use the raceway to pull in a cable instead of individual conductors.

does 312.5(C) require that the cable be secured to the cabinet?

I would take another approach, as I did in the other thread on this, and say you are then using whatever raceway as the 'wiring method'. Article 312 no longer cares if it's a cable or wire installed in that wiring method.

 

[LarryFine]

I would take another approach, as I did in the other thread on this, and say you are then using whatever raceway as the 'wiring method'. Article 312 no longer cares if it's a cable or wire installed in that wiring method.

That's my view, too.

 

[roger]

That's my view, too.

Mine too.

Roger

 

[wwhitney]

That's a very practical view, and one the NEC should embrace, but the text of 312.5(C) doesn't really leave any room for it, in my reading. If the words "where cable is used," were instead "where a cable type wiring method is used," I would definitely agree.

What do you think of that small change as a 2026 PI?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Dennis Alwon]

That's a very practical view, and one the NEC should embrace, but the text of 312.5(C) doesn't really leave any room for it, in my reading. If the words "where cable is used," were instead "where a cable type wiring method is used," I would definitely agree.

What do you think of that small change as a 2026 PI?

Cheers, Wayne

It sounds important to you and perhaps that is enough to show the cmp that it can be interpreted to mean what you are saying. The worst thing that can happen is you get a great big NO... lol

I say go for it.