MC Cable in Raceway with Data/Phone

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smart $ said:
I see that. I was going by circuits at the end of the sentence. Nevertheless, I still read it as saying we cannot place both types in the same raceway, regardless of either being in a cable. Would you prefer it say cable or conductors? I look at a cable assembly of conductors within a raceway to be no different than single conductors within a raceway.
Click to expand...

Smart$:

So if someone ran rigid steel conduit through a surface metal wireway, and that RGS has power conductors in it, we can't put data cables in the same wireway?

That seems to be your conclusion when you say a raceway with conductors is no different than MC cable.

That seems to conflict with what you said here:

Smart $ said:
The armor of MC is not a permanent barrier or listed divider.
Click to expand...

I would completely consider it a permanent, listed divider. That's why MC cable is a Chapter 3 wiring method.
 
steve66 said:
Smart$:

So if someone ran rigid steel conduit through a surface metal wireway, and that RGS has power conductors in it, we can't put data cables in the same wireway?

That seems to be your conclusion when you say a raceway with conductors is no different than MC cable.

That seems to conflict with what you said here:



I would completely consider it a permanent, listed divider. That's why MC cable is a Chapter 3 wiring method.
Click to expand...

The code says what the code says. Smart$ is correct. It doesn't say something else. It may not be a problem, and it may be an unintended consequence, but cable, conductor and raceway are defined terms.

Again, if the MC cable passes all the way through without breaks or any breaks happen in boxes, then there is no reason you can't consider the Wiremold a chase and not a raceway. When the ends are open then it is not part of a raceway system. So I don't think you will get any push back from an inspector, but that doesn't change what Smart is saying.
 
What about the boxes? What about the 90's?

What about the boxes? What about the 90's?

JFletcher said:
If the MC is just passing thru, then the dataguy is right; MC and CatX are cables, not conductors.
Click to expand...

More to the point, this wiremold isn't raceway, it's a chase.

UNLESS, that is, it terminates in a box, in which case you're indeed looking at improperly commingled conductors, once past the MC jacket. Unless your data cable jacket and your application collaborate to satisfy 630.36.

Because as JFletcher noted:

JFletcher said:
However, a divided Wiremold series (like 5400) may still be needed as there are no boxes per se, and having bare conductors from the MC (like next to a receptacle) next to the v/d/v cable is a violation of the aformentioned 725.136(A). [...]

I dont know how you're going to turn wall 90s with MC in Wiremold without breaking the metal jacket or popping the covers off. or both.
Click to expand...
 
Strathead said:
That is basically the point. It doesn't if the MC is installed legally.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks. I guess I misunderstood. I thought you'd suggested that there was way he could have the "breaks happen in boxes" such that he could "consider the Wiremold a chase and not a raceway".

But I'm now gathering that we're on the same page: if there are boxes along the Wiremold route, then this won't work.

Well, unless the datacable leaves the wiremold before the fitting at which the MC enters that box. Leaves how? Well, if it's merely a chase then there needn't be a listed fitting involved, nor continuity of the wiremold, yes?
 
Strathead said:
The code says what the code says. Smart$ is correct. It doesn't say something else. It may not be a problem, and it may be an unintended consequence, but cable, conductor and raceway are defined terms.
Click to expand...

But the code says conductors cannot be in the same raceway - It doesn't say cables. True, the cable contains conductors, but that's a mute point. MC cable is a chapter 3 wiring method, so the outer armor or sheath is a listed divider.

Strathead said:
Again, if the MC cable passes all the way through without breaks or any breaks happen in boxes, then there is no reason you can't consider the Wiremold a chase and not a raceway. When the ends are open then it is not part of a raceway system. So I don't think you will get any push back from an inspector, but that doesn't change what Smart is saying.
Click to expand...

Exactly. You can use the wiremold as a chase since it doesn't have to be a listed raceway. I don't see how that "doesn't change what smart is saying"?:?
 
Smart $ said:
So if you have two EL&P cables in a raceway with three current-carrying conductors each, you would not derate for six current-carrying conductors?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what EL&P is, but ampacity adjustment applies to both conductors and cables.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I have no idea what EL&P is, but ampacity adjustment applies to both conductors and cables.
Click to expand...
EL&P = Electric Light and Power.


Your statement is inaccurate. Ampacity adjustments apply only to conductors, the contents of a raceway, cable, or cables in close proximity. A raceway or cable has no ampacity.
 
steve66 said:
Smart$:

So if someone ran rigid steel conduit through a surface metal wireway, and that RGS has power conductors in it, we can't put data cables in the same wireway?
Click to expand...
That's correct. I'm not saying it would be unsafe in any way... it's a matter of consequence for a rule that considers mostly typical installations. That stated, who in their right mind would run RMC in Wiremold...??? :slaphead:

That seems to be your conclusion when you say a raceway with conductors is no different than MC cable.

That seems to conflict with what you said here:
Click to expand...
All requirements regarding a raceway apply to a cable and its conductors in said raceway... regardless of the cable in and of itself being a Chapter 3 wiring method.

I would completely consider it a permanent, listed divider. That's why MC cable is a Chapter 3 wiring method.
Click to expand...
That's a [seemingly] logical conclusion. But where does Code state this. Many great debates have stemmed from Code not being logical or comprehensive. :happyyes:
 
thank you, netpog.

This is from LeGrand on series 3000 Wiremold:

"Power or data/communication devices can be wired into the raceway for a flush appearance satisfying both aesthetic and functional requirements"

That bolded "OR" is key. Here is the 4000 series:

"The 4000 Series Raceway is the work horse of surface raceway systems. 4000 Raceway can be divided for multi-service applications. 4000 Series Raceway is ideal for all applications requiring a large cable capacity dual service steel raceway."

http://www.legrand.us/wiremold/race...ay/4000-large-raceway/4000-large-raceway.aspx

If you look at that pic in the above link, you see a receptacle next to catx keystones.

So, 4000 series CAN be divided where the 3000 series cant. Run 4000 with the dividers and be done with it. No fuss, no mess, no redoing work (btw, Wiremold is hideously expensive and anything short of a chopsaw will make utterly awful joints/corners. and you cant return cut or mounted Wiremold for a refund).

Do it once, do it right. And remember, there is no problem exceeding code.

Get 'er done.

eta: even if there are NO receptacles now, sure as heck someone will want some in the future. Put in 4000 and you are set. Future proof as much as possible, within budget ofc.

Only way OP would come ahead with 3000 is if there is no chance of receps, it's a short run of WM, or it isnt some huge hotel needing a mile of the stuff plus 250 corner pieces.
 
Last edited:
iwire said:
My brain is huge. :thumbsup:


It takes no more than a quick look at the NEC to determine the CMPs consider cables and conductors separate items in dozens of places through the code.
Click to expand...
Please cite a few example sections.

There likely are sections where a cable is treated differently than one or more single conductors. However, cables under 310.15 can and are in many cases treated the same as single conductors, such as ampacity adjustment of more than one cable in a raceway or in close proximity (i.e. bundled).

Where there are no contextual indications a cable should be considered separate from single conductors, I say the default is to consider all conductors as conductors. I can't believe this rationale is hard to adopt. :D
 
Smart $ said:
Where there are no contextual indications a cable should be considered separate from single conductors,
Click to expand...

Just the fact that they are separate words. If we should consider them both the same, the code would only use one of the two words. The simple fact that they use both words, and the locations where they choose to use one word or the other makes total sense, should be enough.

If that's not enough, if we are to consider them both the same, why would the code ever need to state "cables or conductors", which it does in several locations? 314.71 just as an example, and also in 520,620, 392.
 
steve66 said:
Just the fact that they are separate words. If we should consider them both the same, the code would only use one of the two words. The simple fact that they use both words, and the locations where they choose to use one word or the other makes total sense, should be enough.

If that's not enough, if we are to consider them both the same, why would the code ever need to state "cables or conductors", which it does in several locations? 314.71 just as an example, and also in 520,620, 392.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they are the same. I'm saying a cable is comprised of one or more conductors. Where a section applies to one or more conductors, we cannot dismiss the fact that one or more of the conductors upon which the requirement bears could be in a cable. If the requirement does not apply to conductors of the cable, then the section should explicitly note such.

I'm also not denying there are sections which cables are distinguished as a separate entity from single conductors. However, in some cases, distinguishing these as separate entities could just be a matter of boolean logic. It is possible to have single conductors and no cable(s), but you cannot have a cable without one or more conductors (with the exception of fiberoptic "cables").

Also, because cables qualify as a wiring method, the mention of cables in some sections is required to make it known the requirement applies to cables within another wiring method or enclosure, the same as conductors. You are construing this manner of application reinforcement to infer cables are not subject to requirements for conductors located elsewhere in Code when not mentioned. I do not subscribe to that premise.
 
wwhitney said:
Why?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Show me where it or any wiring method is so described in Code.

Let's apply some of that cross section logic that seems to be the trending in this thread... how does one apply 314.28(D) for an MC cable run into or through a box?
 
So how does type MC-PCS cable fit into this? You're saying that arrangement is allowed by 725.136, but a similar arrangement would not be allowed under 800.133?

Thanks,
Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
So how does type MC-PCS cable fit into this? You're saying that arrangement is allowed by 725.136, but a similar arrangement would not be allowed under 800.133?

Thanks,
Wayne
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about 725.136. What I will say is that 725.136(I) permits MC-PCS. However, if you ran a separate MC cable and a Class 2 or 3 cable in wiremold without a divider, I'd say it was non-compliant under 725.136.

800.133(A)(2) Exception No. 2 is the Article 800 equivalent to 725,136(I)(2), which alleviates the 2 in spacing required in the general statement... but that is in free air. Once you put both in a raceway, the requirements start all over again for what is contained in the raceway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top