Does the code say and where? Running (or) passing home run feeders through Emt for a dwelling unit, through another dwelling unit?

[bajosparky]

Hi guys.
As I'm flipping page by page,into the NEC I can't find specific article number.I go over 225,but can't find about, running(or) passing home run Emt for feeders that supply a dwelling unit, through another dwelling unit.Since there is not much space in the hallway?.

 

[Little Bill]

Hi guys.
As I'm flipping page by page,into the NEC I can't find specific article number.I go over 225,but can't find about, running(or) passing home run Emt for feeders that supply a dwelling unit, through another dwelling unit.Since there is not much space in the hallway?.

Are these feeders or service entrance conductors?

For feeders see 225.32

Service conductors may not pass through another building
230.3

 

[LarryFine]

Welcome to the forum.

Properly-protected feeders can go just about anywhere like branch circuits can, even through other premises.

 

[electrofelon]

Are these feeders or service entrance conductors?

For feeders see 225.32

Service conductors may not pass through another building
230.3

Bill note that 225 would not apply if this is all the same building. Perhaps the OP can clarify, but sounds to me like it's one building because he mentioned no room in the hallway.

 

[Eddie702]

Like a side by side duplex with the service on one side of the building. You can feed the side on the far end with a feeder running through the side that has the meter and service equipment in or on it. Not an issue.

It does not have to be in conduit. It's a feeder not service entrance as @LarryFine mentioned. The feeder could be SER cable or Romex.

 

[bajosparky]

Are these feeders or service entrance conductors?

For feeders see 225.32

Service conductors may not pass through another building
230.3

Feeders(Home run for the panel) not service entrance.

 

[bajosparky]

Welcome to the forum.

Properly-protected feeders can go just about anywhere like branch circuits can, even through other premises.

Is there specific article I can find Larry,we need to run 1"1/4 emt, for 8 units they all under same menagment,but as I said we can't through the hallway because it's so much limited and no space to do a unistrut's.Just I wanna show to the GC in the NEC book..
Thanks you so much guys that reply here all of you .

 

[LarryFine]

Is there specific article I can find Larry . . .

It is allowed in that it is not prohibited, and because feeders are protected by OCP.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Are these condos that are individually owned or apartments that are not individually owned?

 

[bajosparky]

Are these condos that are individually owned or apartments that are not individually owned?

It's same menagment company,it's only for rental.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

It's same menagment company,it's only for rental.

Then there should be no issue.

When you have town homes or condos, you can't do that without getting an easement from the other owner...something I would never give if I was the other owner.

 

[NoahsArc]

Welcome to the forum.

Properly-protected feeders can go just about anywhere like branch circuits can, even through other premises.

Per 225.31, wouldn't they need disconnects at the point of entry of each unit they pass through, in the case that there are fire walls between apartments (in my experience, this is the case often)? Usually I consider an apartment a "building" by code.

 

[electrofelon]

Per 225.31, wouldn't they need disconnects at the point of entry of each unit they pass through, in the case that there are fire walls between apartments (in my experience, this is the case often)? Usually I consider an apartment a "building" by code.

Two things: first you have to find out if they are actually separate buildings. Second, 225 uses the phrase "building or structure" so the way I interpret that is you could have multiple buildings that are physically joined but it would still be one structure.

 

[NoahsArc]

the phrase "building or structure" so the way I interpret that is you could have multiple buildings that are physically joined but it would still be one structure.

Why say "or structure" when all structures are buildings... A building is "a structure that stands alone or is separated from adjoining structures by fire walls." So all structures are buildings. So is it safe if we assume that because they included "or structure" that the "or structure" would supersede "building" when a containing structure is present? Why include "building" if they only meant "structure"? That indicates to me that when either term is triggered you must add a disconnect.

I mean, if they intended you to ignore buildings-within-structures and always to d/c for a structure, wouldn't they just say "disconnect at the structure"?

(As a side note, I would always bid this assuming the apartments were separate buildings.)

 

[electrofelon]

Why say "or structure" when all structures are buildings... A building is "a structure that stands alone or is separated from adjoining structures by fire walls." So all structures are buildings. So is it safe if we assume that because they included "or structure" that the "or structure" would supersede "building" when a containing structure is present? Why include "building" if they only meant "structure"? That indicates to me that when either term is triggered you must add a disconnect.

I mean, if they intended you to ignore buildings-within-structures and always to d/c for a structure, wouldn't they just say "disconnect at the structure"?

(As a side note, I would always bid this assuming the apartments were separate buildings.)

You logic is flawed. A building is a structure but a structure is not necessarily a building.

 

[shortcircuit2]

When you have town homes or condos, you can't do that without getting an easement from the other owner...something I would never give if I was the other owner.

Hmmm...I like that perspective. I have heard of one owner cutting the other sides SER cable in their unit and not allowing entry to fix it. Said to run a new one outside the building.

 

[electrofelon]

Hmmm...I like that perspective. I have heard of one owner cutting the other sides SER cable in their unit and not allowing entry to fix it. Said to run a new one outside the building.

I imagine unless this was someone's first rodeo, the easements for other units' utilities would be in place when the place was built.

 

[NoahsArc]

You logic is flawed. A building is a structure but a structure is not necessarily a building.

That's not an issue with the logic. That's an issue with the definitions (which are too simplistic in art 100 apparently).
And my reading of the "building" definition would be that there are two classes of structures indicated: standalone and compound. Is there a third class I have not considered, a structure that neither stands alone nor is conjoined with other structures? It seems to me that standalone/compound would include all structures, definitionally per article 100.

Reverse the definitions (as you have), where all buildings are structures but not all structures are buildings, and it still indicates then that when either type is present you should have a disconnect.

If all buildings are structures, why did they include "building" at all?
And why would I assume that just because a building is within another building (or structure within another structure) that only the most meta-level building/structure would be triggered by this text? It has no such indication that it's only to be triggered one time per structure/building-compound.

I may be wrong here, certainly, but it's not due to my reading of the text, rather simply that's not "the way it's done" in practice. The text then needs clarification.

 

[wwhitney]

Per 225.31, wouldn't they need disconnects at the point of entry of each unit they pass through, in the case that there are fire walls between apartments (in my experience, this is the case often)?

Per the scope in 225.1, I would say no. Given its use of the terms "outside" and "on or attached to the outside of buildings," 225.31 would not apply to a branch circuit or feeder that is entirely inside as it travels from one building to an adjoining building (separated by firewalls) that is part of the same structure.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[NoahsArc]

Per the scope in 225.1, I would say no. Given its use of the terms "outside" and "on or attached to the outside of buildings," 225.31 would not apply to a branch circuit or feeder that is entirely inside as it travels from one building to an adjoining building (separated by firewalls) that is part of the same structure.

Cheers, Wayne

Okay, well there is sound logic I can accept. Thank you.