NEC Code Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MBroussard

Member
Location
Baton Rouge, LA USA
The NEC states that a bare copper conductor can be installed in a raceway with insulated conductors. My question is, does the NEC have any restrictions on a Solid Copper Bare conductor being installed in a raceway with insulated conductors?
 
310.3 Stranded Conductors. Where installed in raceways, conductors of size 8 AWG and larger shall be stranded.

Exception: As permitted or required elsewhere in this Code.
 
MBroussard said:
The NEC states that a bare copper conductor can be installed in a raceway with insulated conductors. My question is, does the NEC have any restrictions on a Solid Copper Bare conductor being installed in a raceway with insulated conductors?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum!:happyyes:

May I ask why the concern?
 
Since the op has 2014 as his code cycle then look at 310.106(C). It is as Bob quoted but they moved the section to 310.106 back in the 2011 code. In the 2008 it was 310.3
 
MBroussard said:
I have a DOT Engineer that insist on installing a solid bare conductor with insulted conductors on his street light projects. This has created a installation nightmare!!! One of my pay items for an up coming project is 3,545' 2" PVC [2#2, 2#4, 1#2 Bare Solid Ground].
Click to expand...

is this even under the nec?
 
I don't know about LA but FDOT requires #6 insulated Green ground. Never herd of anyone requiring solid. I would fight that requirement. Yes, install nightmare. Also more expencive. FDOT follows NEC when it suits them.
 
iwire said:
310.3 Stranded Conductors. Where installed in raceways, conductors of size 8 AWG and larger shall be stranded.


Exception: As permitted or required elsewhere in this Code.
Click to expand...
Dennis Alwon said:
Since the op has 2014 as his code cycle then look at 310.106(C). It is as Bob quoted but they moved the section to 310.106 back in the 2011 code. In the 2008 it was 310.3
Click to expand...
Seems to me that 310.106(C) is rendered moot by 250.118(1) for the EGC.
 
Last edited:
don_resqcapt19 said:
Are you saying that one section in Chapters 1-4 cannot modify another section in Chapters 1-4?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm actually saying they can.

This sentence...
250.118 Types of Equipment Grounding Conductors. The equipment grounding conductor run with or enclosing the circuit conductors shall be one or more or a combinationof the following:
(1) A copper, aluminum, or copper-clad aluminum conductor. This conductor shall be solid or stranded; insulated, covered, or bare; and in the form of a wire or a busbar of any shape.
Click to expand...
...meets the requirement of this conditional clause...
310.106 ...

(C) Stranded Conductors. Where installed in raceways, conductors 8 AWG and larger, not specifically permitted or required elsewhere in this Code to be solid, shall be stranded.
Click to expand...
...thereby allowing solid EGC's to be 8AWG and larger in raceways.

Not saying I recommend it... :happyno:
 
Smart $ said:
Absolutely not. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm actually saying they can.

This sentence...

...meets the requirement of this conditional clause...

...thereby allowing solid EGC's to be 8AWG and larger in raceways.

Not saying I recommend it... :happyno:
Click to expand...

They're required to be stranded unless permitted or required to be solid. Street lighting isn't one of those conditions where it would be explicitly permitted or required.
 
I do not see the first section as necessarily providing an override to the 310 section.
You could just as well argue that 250.118 allows you to use black insulated wire for the EGC since it just specifies insulated and does not specify a particular color.
250.118 says that solid is one option and 310.106 qualifies that by stating that solid can only be used in a raceway when smaller than #8.
If the EGC is run with the other conductors, but not in a raceway, then the prohibition against large solid wire does not apply at all.

This is almost as difficult as trying to decide when the Federal government has preempted state regulation in a particular area rather than just supplementing it. :)
 
Smart $ said:
Absolutely not. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm actually saying they can.

This sentence...

...meets the requirement of this conditional clause...

...thereby allowing solid EGC's to be 8AWG and larger in raceways.

Not saying I recommend it... :happyno:
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with that assessment. The first part says nothing of the size but does mention solid. The other section says not over #8 unless required by other sections of the code. Where in the first section does it say it is required to be solid. It gives a choice but 310.106 limits that choice to smaller than #8
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I totally disagree with that assessment. The first part says nothing of the size but does mention solid. The other section says not over #8 unless required by other sections of the code. Where in the first section does it say it is required to be solid. It gives a choice but 310.106 limits that choice to smaller than #8
Click to expand...

I agree. If we use smart$ logic, then we could also put busbar in a raceway.;)
 
I think that we can all agree that we would not want to try and pull a #2 solid conductor into a 2" PVC. :D
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I totally disagree with that assessment. The first part says nothing of the size but does mention solid. The other section says not over #8 unless required by other sections of the code. Where in the first section does it say it is required to be solid. It gives a choice but 310.106 limits that choice to smaller than #8
Click to expand...
The "other" section says unless specifically permitted or required. The "first" section says the EGC shall be solid or stranded. The "shall be" is always considered denoting a specific permission or requirement, is it not?

Yes, a solid or stranded option is provided, but I see nothing in the "other" section which prohibits one from choosing the solid option.
 
MBroussard said:
I have a DOT Engineer that insist on installing a solid bare conductor with insulted conductors on his street light projects. This has created a installation nightmare!!! One of my pay items for an up coming project is 3,545' 2" PVC [2#2, 2#4, 1#2 Bare Solid Ground].
Click to expand...
What is the nightmare the solid bare conductor or the "insulted" conductors?:)

Why are they insulted anyway?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top