nm cable panelboard entry

Status
Not open for further replies.
ichimo23 said:
Would just like a clarification about what we are discussing here. Is it only a violation of 312.5 to use the chase nipple/bushing set up if it's a FLUSH mount panel? eg. would be OK for a surface mount panel?
Click to expand...
The rule that requires the cable to be secured to the panel with a cable clamp applies to both flush and surface mounted panels.
I realize the cables must be secured with listed fittings, but can also be 'sleeved' on surface mount installations.
Click to expand...
The exception permits the use of raceway not less than 18" long and not more than 10' long for surface mount panels.
I am in the Southwest, and have seen the non-compliant installation we are discussing on many occasions. For flush mount installations with NM cable, we usually use the 1" or 1.5" KOs on the top of the can with the appropriate size plastic KO bushing (with the NM stapled within 1' of the panel). Is this legal per 312.5?
Click to expand...
That is not legal for either flush or surface mount panels.
 
Todd Ebenhoeh said:
ive been taught wrong i guess and been doing it "wrong" for 30 years and i have rarely seen it done the "right" in my opinion the "right" way looks sloppy and i am not sure how it would be done on an exterior panel. i just dont understand how somthing like this could be overlooked @ least state wide and then this new inspector tells us we got it wrong. so that is why it is difficult to do it the "right way"
Click to expand...
There are places here too that allow this type of install - and on occassion I get electricians from those areas that have to re-learn a few things that have become the norm elsewhere.

Just because it may or may not have been accepted in other areas does not make it right... Or wrong for that matter... Just accepted practice in that region.

The 'new inspector' is enforcing a CODE - the 'old inspectors' were allowing a PRACTICE.

So how is it done the right way - there are many options but this is one that works well for me.

Put a NEMA 3 box (if outdoors) next to, or above/below the panel take all of the NM to it through the back, land the grounds in it, then just the circuit conductors (and EGC, required for PVC) through a 24" or < nipple to the panel. Once you get rid of the EGC's in the box - it actually makes for a cleaner install in the panel IMO. This also is AWESOME for up-grades since some of the conductors may be too short to just slap a new panel in the same place. On occassion I even just re-use the old panel as a J-box. (if it were done with no violations in the first place.)
 
A nema 3 box is still a cabnet so isnt it still in violation.

i would like to see a real photograph of it done the right way on a house with lets say 30 circuits minimum
 
Todd Ebenhoeh said:
A nema 3 box is still a cabinet so isn't it still in violation.
Click to expand...

I am sure e57 connects each cable to the box with listed connectors.

i would like to see a real photograph of it done the right way on a house with lets say 30 circuits minimum
Click to expand...

So whats that, 15 - 1/2" KOs and a few 3/4" KOs?

I work with larger cabinets and I could get that all in the back of a panel, however with load center I guess I would do as e57 suggesters.
 
Burned

Burned

Todd Ebenhoeh said:
oh well i am not gonna get a good answer here. I think I need to make a submission to the NFPA FOR ANOTHER EXCEPTION on this since pretty much 99% of the state of TEXAS'S houses are 'WRONG"
Click to expand...
Todd,
There are reasons for code requirements that even local jurisdictions waive. As you know from experience, that pulling rope too fast can burn cable outer jackets. This is just one of the reasons doing what you practice is not acceptable in most regions. With new outer jacket SimPul sheathing, this is less of a problem now. In the past, damaged outer jacket NM cable was written up for repair or replacement requirements. Keeping up with code is keeping up with safe and reliable practice. rbj
 
I use a metal chase nipple and I do not pull my wire through this, as anyone that actually does residential wiring would most likely make their runs first. Then pull through this bushed chase nipple one wire at a time. as most people with common sense would do.

I we take type nm rules by themselves the bushed application works.
 
peter d said:
Sure it works, and as stated it's allowed by a local amendment in Arizona. But all that's being pointed out is that it's an NEC violation regardless of what is allowed or practiced in your area.
Click to expand...

Till some poor schmuck from NY tries to snake a recessed panel with a metalic snake and luckilly shorts out the line side of the main blowing the internal fuses on the xformer.
 
With all due respect, I wish I had a dollar for every wireman who has worked for me and said "That's the way I've been doing it for ___ years and I've never had a problem." I'm guessing that I've heard this almost 300 times - seriously.

We electricians are probably the worst creatures of habit. And THAT'S where we need to improve ourselves. Just because we've always done something in some particular fashion (and not gotten knocked down) doesn't make it right. Period. End of sentence.

When we get our licenses every year we're pretty much signing on to that 700-page book of rules. And rules are rules whether we like them or not. We're obligated to follow them. It's what separates us from the hacks. I've seen that darned chase nipple (or 2" Romex connector) dozens of times. And every time I make the installer tear it out and do it right.

I think a technically perfect installation should be sought by all of us. It's what allows us to rise above others. Okay, I'll get off of my soapbox now. Sorry.
 
iwire said:
I am sure e57 connects each cable to the box with listed connectors.

So whats that, 15 - 1/2" KOs and a few 3/4" KOs?

I work with larger cabinets and I could get that all in the back of a panel, however with load center I guess I would do as e57 suggesters.
Click to expand...

Damn straight - a quick few blasts with 7/8" or 3/4" hole cutters - you get the holes you want where you need them in just a few minutes..... If outdoors a big bead of chalk over the top of the cables to deter water entry and put the box or gutter on.... Pop a 2" hole for the nipple in the box and panel - viola!!!! (I have a 2" hole cutter too - 30 seconds)

Big panels, cabinets, small load centers - inside outside upside down - it works like a charm!

I have met fools who would rather cut structural framing or chip stone than put a KO set to work, and I do not understand it? I also can understand the pre-made KO, but often you're stuck with what they give you - let me make my own....
 
When coming up in the trade in CT I never saw a panel installed w/ the chase nipple method. Than again I don't think I ever saw an exterior loadcenter. Here in CO it is the norm to have an exterior loadcenter and the chase nipple method is prevalent in the entire metro area. When one is doing a service upgrade there is really not a whole lot of choice but to replicate the same method (unless you are willing to do lots of damage to the interior finishes. I see lots of new work still being done this way but I've never really liked it. On new work I always put the panel inside and enter via the methods discussed (I've never really understood why people like the panels outside).

E57, if I understand your description, you set a box, drop the EGC's and turn the other conductors through a nipple and terminate them in the panel. Isn't this a violation by having the stripped NM in exterior conduit? The reason I ask is I have a thread going where I did something similiar (brought the NM into a trough and turned the conductors up through 2" chase nipples) and was shot down for the conductors being in a wet location.
 
ishium 80439 said:
When coming up in the trade in CT I never saw a panel installed w/ the chase nipple method. Than again I don't think I ever saw an exterior loadcenter. Here in CO it is the norm to have an exterior loadcenter and the chase nipple method is prevalent in the entire metro area. When one is doing a service upgrade there is really not a whole lot of choice but to replicate the same method (unless you are willing to do lots of damage to the interior finishes. I see lots of new work still being done this way but I've never really liked it. On new work I always put the panel inside and enter via the methods discussed (I've never really understood why people like the panels outside).

E57, if I understand your description, you set a box, drop the EGC's and turn the other conductors through a nipple and terminate them in the panel. Isn't this a violation by having the stripped NM in exterior conduit? The reason I ask is I have a thread going where I did something similiar (brought the NM into a trough and turned the conductors up through 2" chase nipples) and was shot down for the conductors being in a wet location.
Click to expand...
Excellent point, and no I have never been hit on that.... IMO if you were going to get hit on that - you should also be hit on that for taking them to an exterior panel in the first place. So I see no difference in taking them to a box first then a short distance to the panel. Others may disagree... But otherise you are almost forced to use a large KO, as often that is what is given on the back of most panels - often leaving very little space for much else... That one could secure correctly. And the cable jacket, and its conductors are still outside - be it in a cabinet or a J-bx. If you're getting hit on that - then everyone should be bringing UF out any exterior panel - right?

Sometimes you have to break some eggs - and I'll be happy to say that in the other thread too.
 
would a 2 inch romex connector with all cables passing through this connector. would this not effectively attach the cable to the panelboard,as i understand multiple cables through this connector is allowable
 
Todd Ebenhoeh said:
would a 2 inch romex connector with all cables passing through this connector. would this not effectively attach the cable to the panelboard,as i understand multiple cables through this connector is allowable
Click to expand...

Fine if not for the probable violation of 110.3(B)

Todd Ebenhoeh said:
If the "right" way is so common how come no one has been able to produce a photograrh of an actual installation .
Click to expand...

Not sure why the big argument. You were looking for a different answer than you got.... no big deal we've all been there. Read through 312.5 and see that the guys here are just explaining what is in the NEC. No one is taking sides against you.......
 
Todd Ebenhoeh said:
would a 2 inch romex connector with all cables passing through this connector. would this not effectively attach the cable to the panelboard,as i understand multiple cables through this connector is allowable
Click to expand...
How many cables are permitted to be used with this connector? I don't think that there are any cable connectors listed for use with more than 3 cables.
 
Todd Ebenhoeh said:
If the "right" way is so common how come no one has been able to produce a photograrh of an actual installation .
Click to expand...

You mean like this? I'm surprised that the guy didn't stuff the SER feed into the fitting with all of the other NM...:roll:

junk.jpg



vs. this?

staples1.jpg
 
I see all of the #14 Romex on one side of the panel and all of the #12 Romex is on the other side. Is that what we call a "balanced load"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top