Cable in conduit

Status
Not open for further replies.
carl.arnsdorff said:
I really don't understand the references to section 400.
Click to expand...
Have you read it?

Will each local inspector in the US apply the sections based on their interpretation regardless of the UL listing and the manufacturers informartion.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, but they may question it's really UL listed like you are describing.
Is the UL rating even worth the cost?
Click to expand...
You can't sell it here w/out it (or an equivalent testing agency).
How can any piece of equipment be supplied with a power cord?.
Click to expand...

Power cords are not installed in conduits in the field. They are usually limited to about 6' in length. Do you have a plug on the end of this "power cord" ?
 
carl.arnsdorff said:
Is the UL rating even worth the cost?
Click to expand...

Many states, including Washington, require electrical equipment to be listed, by UL , or other "NRTL" testing lab. If the entire system, including the type W cable, was listed and approved, then it could be allowed.
And in Washington, a health care facility requires a plan review before the job is started.
Just because its done and has been does not mean its acceptable or safe.
There are some types of Type W cable that are dual listed as building wiring.
 
Is there a multiconductor power cable that could be UL listed as a power interconnect between equipment components that could alternately be installed in conduit based on site specific needs?

Some of the responses cite 400.8 stating it cannot be used in a raceway. Is this true that there is not a cable that can be installed in a raceway?

Some of the responses indicate that the connection between equipment must be in a raceway. Is there no possibility of having a power cable without a raceway? How can the statement 400.7 (8) be utilized or does no equipment actually meet this statement?:confused:
 
carl.arnsdorff said:
Is there a multiconductor power cable that could be UL listed as a power interconnect between equipment components that could alternately be installed in conduit based on site specific needs?

Some of the responses cite 400.8 stating it cannot be used in a raceway. Is this true that there is not a cable that can be installed in a raceway?

Some of the responses indicate that the connection between equipment must be in a raceway. Is there no possibility of having a power cable without a raceway? How can the statement 400.7 (8) be utilized or does no equipment actually meet this statement?:confused:
Click to expand...


If this is a continuous raceway why is cable being used rather than individual conductors such as TW or Thwn??? It does not seem to need the flexibility if it is in conduit but I am sure there are possible other reasons-- I just am curious.

Also there is an exception to 400.8 that says except where allowed elsewhere in the code. Where is elsewhere stating rubber cord is allowed in a raceway?
 
Last edited:
Dennis Alwon said:
If this is a continuous raceway why is cable being used rather than individual conductors such as TW or Thwn??? It does not seem to need the flexibility if it is in conduit but I am sure there are possible other reasons-- I just am curious.

Also there is an exception to 400.8 that says except where allowed elsewhere in the code. Where is elsewhere stating rubber cord is allowed in a raceway?
Click to expand...

The alternate use of conduit comes from the apparent response of some sites/inspectors not allowing power cord to be used to interconnect subcomponents of the equipment although it is UL listed with the equipment. The flexibility is needed but some sites may be required to make this difficult to service based on site specific requirements imposed either internally by the facility or externally by electrical codes/inspectors.

Are you asking me about the elsewhere portion of 400.8? I'm asking the if there is a such thing as a power cable that is allowed in conduit. If not, please respond accordingly.

Additionally, based on the responses it sounds like there is no such equipment as that described in 400.7 (8) that meets NEC requirements. Is this true? If not, how is it determined when you can or cannot apply 400.7 (8)?

The equipment in question is designed on wheels and in cabinets with doors and easily removed panels to provide for ease of maintenance and is UL listed with flexible power cable for this purpose. However, the posts indicate that this is not allowed.

I know the code is not written to provide ease of use or universal understanding but with the quantity of equipment that does contain flexible power cords in existence I expected that a general concurrence on the subject would be known.
 
carl.arnsdorff said:
The alternate use of conduit comes from the apparent response of some sites/inspectors not allowing power cord to be used to interconnect subcomponents of the equipment although it is UL listed with the equipment. The flexibility is needed but some sites may be required to make this difficult to service based on site specific requirements imposed either internally by the facility or externally by electrical codes/inspectors.

Are you asking me about the elsewhere portion of 400.8? I'm asking the if there is a such thing as a power cable that is allowed in conduit. If not, please respond accordingly.
Click to expand...
There may be one. I have no knowledge of it.
NEC 400.8 {Not permitted}(6) states: (6) Where installed in raceways, except as otherwise permitted in this Code .
NEC 400.14 makes some allowance in INDUSTRIAL applications. There may be other allowances of which I am not aware.
carl.arnsdorff said:
Additionally, based on the responses it sounds like there is no such equipment as that described in 400.7 (8) that meets NEC requirements. Is this true? If not, how is it determined when you can or cannot apply 400.7 (8)?

The equipment in question is designed on wheels and in cabinets with doors and easily removed panels to provide for ease of maintenance and is UL listed with flexible power cable for this purpose. However, the posts indicate that this is not allowed.
Click to expand...
This is addressed by NEC, but most of the resons you give for using cord requires the cord be terminated with an attachment plug.
carl.arnsdorff said:
I know the code is not written to provide ease of use or universal understanding but with the quantity of equipment that does contain flexible power cords in existence I expected that a general concurrence on the subject would be known.
Click to expand...

From reading this post, to me, the general concurrance seems to be that
if you are going to use cords for interchange of equipment, or ready removal for maintenance or repair then attachment plugs are needed.

I can't help but get the feeling you have not read NEC 400.7 and 400.8 .
Admittedly it leaves room for interpretation, but if you have not done so, please review it.

As I mentioned earlier, my experience has been that if the equipment is factory assembeld and the cord is supplied as part of this asembly, and the assembly (not just the indivicual components) is UL (or NRTL) listed, more jurisdictions would accept it, given proper documentation, IMHO.
The misapplication of cords makes that a target area for most AHJs.

Your biggest problem unfortunately lies in 90.4: The authority having jurisdiction for enforcement of the Code has the responsibility for making interpretations of the rules, for deciding on the approval of equipment and materials, and for granting the special permission contemplated in a number of the rules.
 
In response to not having read 4007. and 400.8 - I have read 400.7 or 400.8 many times. The wording leaves a lot of things open as well as a lot of interpretation as to what part may or may not apply to a particular application. It is obvious that you have a very black and white view of what you think it means and my view is not so black and white.

I am also unsure of why you state that it appears to be required to have a connector on the ends (although the final version of the latest equipment most likely will include this). The portions of the code that I am aware of state that it is when used and not that it is a requirement. Please let me know what specific code requires it to have a connector on the ends. This would be very helpful.
 
why I asked had you read the articles :smile:
NEC 400.7(B) seems, in my black and white view, to address the reasons you have listed for the need for cord.

I agree the wording leaves a lot to be desired, and, as noted in my lasst post, in that case you often unfortunately revert back to NEC 90.4 and a "black & white" inspector, like myself.

my final post on the matter.......

good luck
 
Carl
Just come to the conclusion it is most likely not a compliant installation.
Realize as has been stated, that following the installation of the person before you does not necessarily make for a compliant installatioon.

"Ease" of installation is always strived for, but not necessarily obtained. Sometimes it is just going to be a struggle to make the proper installation...also Class"B" and Class "C" terminations are distinctly different.
 
augie47 said:
sight unseen, it appears such installation might be a violation of 400.8 (1).
Click to expand...


400.8 Uses Not Permitted. Unless specifically permitted
in 400.7, flexible cords and cables shall not be used for the
following:
(1) As a substitute for the fixed wiring of a structure
Click to expand...

I don't see how it could be considered part of the wiring of the structure.
 
carl.arnsdorff said:
The 5 wire cable is #1 and the 3 wire cable is #10.

Does 400.7 (8) not allow this or is the term appliance mean particular types of equipment?
Click to expand...

400.7(A) (8) Appliances where the fastening means and mechanical
connections are specifically designed to permit ready removal
for maintenance and repair, and the appliance is
intended or identified for flexible cord connection
Click to expand...

I am inclined to think it is specifically allowed, since it is clearly intended for flexible cord connection by the manufacturer. However, see 400.7(B).

That does not mean a local amendment might be more restrictive or a local inspector might decide to make up his own rules.

<added> I think in the end the argument is going to come down to whether the inspector likes the installation method or not, and whether you make a good argument that the cabling is part of the machine. Its a pretty easy argument if its a short cable. A hundred foot cable is a little different.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top