Cable or conductor

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

triniboy

Member
Guys

In NEC section 300.50(B) it states

Protection from Damage. Conductors emerging from
the ground shall be enclosed in listed raceways. Raceways
installed on poles shall be of rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, PVC Schedule 80, or equivalent, extending
from the minimum cover depth specified in Table 300.50 to a
point 2.5 m (8 ft) above finished grade. Conductors entering a
building shall be protected by an approved enclosure or raceway
from the minimum cover depth to the point of entrance.
Where direct-buried conductors, raceways, or cables
are subject to movement by settlement or frost, they shall
be installed to prevent damage to the enclosed conductors
or to the equipment connected to the raceways. Metallic
enclosures shall be grounded.

Now I have been applying this to my MV cables now I am in a discussion with my contractor who reads the code as this section only covers individual single conductors, is he correct
 
IMO you are correct, NEC handbook states: If MV cables are installed in

underground installations, they must comply with 300.50.
 
If the rule says conductors then it must mean conductors and not cables. It the CMP intended to include both cables and conductors, they would have (should have) used both terms in the rule.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If the rule says conductors then it must mean conductors and not cables. It the CMP intended to include both cables and conductors, they would have (should have) used both terms in the rule.
Click to expand...

OK think this out. If you have a cable ,and it has CONDUCTORS ,then are they protect as per code ? NO. NEC has never been user friendly and often goes the hard way to answer questions. What we need is protection from every thing like lawn mowers ,weed whackers ,shovels,etc. A piece of UF does not meet code. Not really sure if shc 80 could take commercial weed eater very long but we have complied.
 
triniboy said:
Now I have been applying this to my MV cables now I am in a discussion with my contractor who reads the code as this section only covers individual single conductors, is he correct
Click to expand...

My interpretation is that it applies to cables because the degree of physical protection provided by a cable assembly is essentially the same as having individual conductors. Even if you were using CLX type armored cable, the armor is not equivalent to RMC, IMC, or Sch. 80 so the armored cable would need to be protected.

To avoid the issue in the future put a line in the general section of your scope of work to address this issue, or put it into an Electrical Material & Practices Standard that is referenced in the scope of work and you use on all of your jobs.
 
Hi Guys
Thank you all for your interpretations on this subject but we still do not have a concrete agreement on the whether to apply the code to a cable the same way we would apply it to a conductor my view on it is that a cable is a 3 core conductor therfore all conductor compliencies can be applied to a cable
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top