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

B

bajosparky

Member
Location
Chicago
Occupation
Electrician
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?.
 
bajosparky said:
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?.
Click to expand...
Are these feeders or service entrance conductors?

For feeders see 225.32

Service conductors may not pass through another building
230.3
 
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.
 
LarryFine said:
Welcome to the forum.

Properly-protected feeders can go just about anywhere like branch circuits can, even through other premises.
Click to expand...
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 .
 
bajosparky said:
It's same menagment company,it's only for rental.
Click to expand...
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.
 
LarryFine said:
Welcome to the forum.

Properly-protected feeders can go just about anywhere like branch circuits can, even through other premises.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NoahsArc said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
electrofelon said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.)
 
NoahsArc said:
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.)
Click to expand...
You logic is flawed. A building is a structure but a structure is not necessarily a building.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
You logic is flawed. A building is a structure but a structure is not necessarily a building.
Click to expand...
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.
 
NoahsArc said:
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)?
Click to expand...
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
 
wwhitney said:
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
Click to expand...
Okay, well there is sound logic I can accept. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top