Armored CAT6 and power conductors in same conduit

[W@ttson]

Can an armored CAT6 cable and power conductors occupy the same conduit?

Such as:

https://catalog.belden.com/techdata/EN/127953A_techdata.pdf?_gl=1*7j5smo*_ga*MjEwMzc0NjQ0NS4xNjgyMTE1MTEy*_ga_X6Q7YE8B3L*MTY4MjExNTExMi4xLjEuMTY4MjExNTE4MS4wLjAuMA..

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes. 725.136(I)(1).

 

[W@ttson]

thank you

 

[gadfly56]

thank you

Please note that the "yes" reply hinges on the fact that the armored cable is rated to 600V. Had it been the more typical 300V for low voltage cable, the likely answer would have been "no", since all power conductors I've seen have a minimum rated insulation of 600V, and that's the key metric for putting cables for different systems in the same conduit.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Please note that the "yes" reply hinges on the fact that the armored cable is rated to 600V. Had it been the more typical 300V for low voltage cable, the likely answer would have been "no", since all power conductors I've seen have a minimum rated insulation of 600V, and that's the key metric for putting cables for different systems in the same conduit.

There is no voltage requirement in the section I cited. The rule I cited is a Chapter 7 rule and 90.3 permits that rule to modify the rule in Chapter 3 that you are talking about.

 

[packersparky]

Yes. 725.136(I)(1).

Just curious, but why would that be covered by Article 725 and not 800?

 

[jaggedben]

Please note that the "yes" reply hinges on the fact that the armored cable is rated to 600V. Had it been the more typical 300V for low voltage cable, the likely answer would have been "no", since all power conductors I've seen have a minimum rated insulation of 600V, and that's the key metric for putting cables for different systems in the same conduit.

I don't know why this confusion arises so much, but that just isn't what 300.2(C)(1) says. It simply says all conductors must be rated for the circuit with the highest voltage. Other rules aside, it is perfectly okay to have 300V rated conductors in the same raceway as 600V rated conductors if the highest circuit voltage is, say, 240V. (One doesn't need Chapter 7 to override Chapter 3 for this to be allowed.)

 

[jaggedben]

Just curious, but why would that be covered by Article 725 and not 800?

Article 800 in the 2017 NEC is now Article 805 since the 2020 NEC. That article only applies to circuits that are powered by the communications utility, e.g. plain old telephone lines or cable TV coax. It's unlikely that cat6 would be used for that (though it could work for plain old telephone). Most likely it's being used either for an article 840 Premises Powered Broadband system (and 840.3(B)(4) in turn refers to 725) or its for another purpose covered by 725. Any typical UTP ethernet network would be an 840 system the way I read it.

The new article 800 contains general requirements that so far as I've noticed don't get specific on the OPs question because the answer depends on which other article covers the application.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Just curious, but why would that be covered by Article 725 and not 800?

Prior to the 2023 code, 800 stopped at the end of the utility owned communications equipment, so it could be 800 if the cable originated at a communications supplier owned modem.

However with a change in definitions, data cables are in Chapter 8 for 2023 code.

In the 2020 code, 805.133(A)(2) Exception #1 says the same thing as what I cited from Article 725. For the 2023 code the rule is found in 800.133(B) Exception #1.

 

[gadfly56]

I don't know why this confusion arises so much, but that just isn't what 300.2(C)(1) says. It simply says all conductors must be rated for the circuit with the highest voltage. Other rules aside, it is perfectly okay to have 300V rated conductors in the same raceway as 600V rated conductors if the highest circuit voltage is, say, 240V. (One doesn't need Chapter 7 to override Chapter 3 for this to be allowed.)

OK, I guess I've always misread this requirement.

 

[W@ttson]

its for industrial control networking