Code violation 10 awg wire in 1/2?

[Eddy Current]

We hooked up a saw the other day and ran # 10 wire in a 1/2 piece of seal tight 3 foot long. One of the guys that came to check it out before the inspector came said you can't have #10 wire in anything 1/2. Does anybody have a code reference for this?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

That is not true. If it fits the table fill it is good. 350.22

 

[mcelweec@gmail.com]

If the seal tight was used as an egc
250.118 would apply.

 

[roger]

We hooked up a saw the other day and ran # 10 wire in a 1/2 piece of seal tight 3 foot long. One of the guys that came to check it out before the inspector came said you can't have #10 wire in anything 1/2. Does anybody have a code reference for this?

Does this guy that "came to check it out" have any electrical experience?

Show him Dennis's code reference.

Roger

 

[Dennis Alwon]

If the seal tight was used as an egc
250.118 would apply.

That is a good point but I don't think that was what he was asking but maybe that is what the inspector was thinking.

 

[kwired]

Apparently I have connected thousands of A/C condensers and water heaters and motors incorrectly, and even some requiring 8Awg conductors.




According to table 4 in chapter 9 RMC and LFMC have same internal diameter, so I can't run #10 in RMC either.


#10 requires minimum of 1-1/2 trade size of any type raceway

 

[Cow]

We hooked up a saw the other day and ran # 10 wire in a 1/2 piece of seal tight 3 foot long. One of the guys that came to check it out before the inspector came said you can't have #10 wire in anything 1/2. Does anybody have a code reference for this?

Makes a guy wonder, why do people ALWAYS come on here asking for a code reference for something their buddy/boss/whatever said is a violation? WHY DON'T YOU ASK THEM FOR A CODE REFERENCE?

People do the same thing on here with inspectors and sketchy inspection reports. It's not your job to figure out what code article the inspector is trying to call you on if it's not listed(made up code?), you should be asking the inspector to show you!!

Just doesn't make sense to me...

 

[augie47]

I wouldn't give much credit to someone trying to predict an inspector's advice unless that person could cite Code references.
That advice is often based on what a friend told him about another friends job

 

[DARUSA]

I thinking the table in chappter 9 is wrong because I have another table from Cooper line that shows the area of the #10 THHN is 0.0211in* and based on chapter 9 table 4 for 4 conductors (60%) for FMCis 0.190 in* now!!
Is you have 4 conductors #10 THHN (3phase plus ground)
#10-0.0211in* x 4= 0.0844
It is ok for me as long you use EGC of the wire type!!!

 

[DARUSA]

Actully only 40%fill for more than 3 conductors
1/2 still working 0.1256in*

 

[DARUSA]

Actully table 5 shows it 0.0211 for #10 wire!!!

 

[infinity]

Actually only 40%fill for more than 3 conductors

I think that you meant more than 2 conductors.

 

[glene77is]

That is not true. If it fits the table fill it is good. 350.22

Dennis,

Does Table C.1 work here?

THHN,
........1/2...3/4...1
14---12---22---35
12--- 9--- 16---26
10--- 5--- 10---16

And if not, lead me on with a citation, please.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The original question was about sealtight so Table C7 applies.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

The original question was about sealtight so Table C7 applies.

I agree. Although 350.22 directs us to Table 1 Chapter 9 I don't see why we can't use Annex C Table7. Either way will probable be pretty accurate.

 

[roger]

I agree. Although 350.22 directs us to Table 1 Chapter 9 I don't see why we can't use Annex C Table7. Either way will probable be pretty accurate.

350.22 wouldn't know if we were dealing with conductors all of the same size.

Roger

 

[iwire]

I agree. Although 350.22 directs us to Table 1 Chapter 9 I don't see why we can't use Annex C Table7. Either way will probable be pretty accurate.

You can use either but I would say that it can't direct you to the Annex as the annex is not part of the code while Chapter 9 is part of the code.




From 90.3

Chapter 9 consists of tables that are applicable as
referenced.
Annexes are not part of the requirements of this Code
but are included for informational purposes only.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I understand why it isn't there just stating that either method would be accurate. We pick the code apart so I was thinking someone would say 350.22 only say Chapter 9. I am saying hogwash.

 

[iwire]

I understand why it isn't there just stating that either method would be accurate.

Actually both are not always accurate, there are mistakes in the tables, I use the tables for quick figuring but do the math if I have any doubts, besides the tables are worthless for most feeders. (mixed wire sizes)

We pick the code apart so I was thinking someone would say 350.22 only say Chapter 9. I am saying hogwash.

I agree kind of but if there is a mistake in the annex tables the Chapter 9 overrules it.

 

[Eddy Current]

Makes a guy wonder, why do people ALWAYS come on here asking for a code reference for something their buddy/boss/whatever said is a violation? WHY DON'T YOU ASK THEM FOR A CODE REFERENCE?

People do the same thing on here with inspectors and sketchy inspection reports. It's not your job to figure out what code article the inspector is trying to call you on if it's not listed(made up code?), you should be asking the inspector to show you!!

Just doesn't make sense to me...

I guess i would rather come on here and look like an idiot than at work in front of my boss.



This may be a company thing, the factory that we did the wiring for is one of the largest in the southern United States and one of the other guys there said they have their own rules that go above and beyond the code.