Pex, 12/3 wire, CAT6, RG6 in same underground chase

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

deckscrew

Member
Hello,

I'm a GC in the Bay Area. A few year ago we installed a concrete patio. We ran a 1-1/4" chase (12' long) under the slab for some future low voltage lighting. We been asked to come back and a build an office/shed. The owner wants to use the chase to bring a 1/2" pex line, 12/3 direct burial cable, CAT 6 and RG6 from the basement to the new shed about 16' away from the patio.

I'm not sure of the legality codewise. I tried to find some information online, but it wasn't clear. The local building inspector had no opinion either. I've always gotten good advice and knowledge here, so I asking for comments.

Thanks
 
deckscrew said:
Hello,

I'm a GC in the Bay Area. A few year ago we installed a concrete patio. We ran a 1-1/4" chase (12' long) under the slab for some future low voltage lighting. We been asked to come back and a build an office/shed. The owner wants to use the chase to bring a 1/2" pex line, 12/3 direct burial cable, CAT 6 and RG6 from the basement to the new shed about 16' away from the patio.

I'm not sure of the legality codewise. I tried to find some information online, but it wasn't clear. The local building inspector had no opinion either. I've always gotten good advice and knowledge here, so I asking for comments.

Thanks
Click to expand...
That would be fine as long as the wiring method isn't a type that needs to be in a raceway. UF would do it.
 
petersonra said:
are we convinced that these conductors would be article 800 conductors and not article 725 conductors?
Click to expand...

Definitely a valid point. Not sure if there is a similar statement in other articles.
incidentally I think article 800 says 2 inches and not 3 inches.
Click to expand...

Correct, I mis-remembered.



infinity said:
The 2" separation is for conductors not cables.
Click to expand...

I've debated this before, and I disagree. If it only applied to conductors, there would be no need to put those cable types in an exception, or the exception would just say "cable assemblies".
 
electrofelon said:
I've debated this before, and I disagree. If it only applied to conductors, there would be no need to put those cable types in an exception, or the exception would just say "cable assemblies".
Click to expand...

I disagree, and I'll leave it at that. I will leave this definition though:

334.2 Definitions.
Nonmetallic-Sheathed Cable. A factory assembly of two
or more insulated conductors enclosed within an overall
nonmetallic jacket.
Click to expand...
 
This is what 800.133 (A)(2) says with my commentary.

(2) Other Applications. Communications wires and cables
shall be separated at least 50 mm (2 in.) from conductors of
any electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire alarm,
or medium-power network-powered broadband communications
circuits.
Click to expand...
It uses the term communications wires and cables so that would seem to cover individual conductors.

As far as being separated from power conductors, it is pretty clear that cables by definition are made up of conductors so there is certainly a conductor involved there as well.

Exception No. 1: Section 800.133(A)(2) shall not apply where either
(1) all of the conductors of the electric light, power, Class 1, non–powerlimited
fire alarm, and medium-power network-powered broadband
communications circuits are in a raceway or in metal-sheathed, metalclad,
nonmetallic-sheathed, Type AC, or Type UF cables,
Click to expand...
It seems to me this allows for an exception for certain conductors that are part of a cable assembly, oddly (at least to my way of thinking) including NM.

or (2) all of the conductors of communications circuits are encased in raceway.
Click to expand...
Does it seem odd that they used the term 'encased in a raceway'? How can anything be "encased" in a raceway?
Exception No. 2: Section 800.133(A)(2) shall not apply where the
communications wires and cables are permanently separated from the
conductors of electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire
alarm, and medium-power network-powered broadband communications
circuits by a continuous and firmly fixed nonconductor, such as
porcelain tubes or flexible tubing, in addition to the insulation on the
wire.
Click to expand...
Or you can run the communications cables in some kind of plastic cable and that is fine too.
 
petersonra said:
This is what 800.133 (A)(2) says with my commentary.


It uses the term communications wires and cables so that would seem to cover individual conductors.

As far as being separated from power conductors, it is pretty clear that cables by definition are made up of conductors so there is certainly a conductor involved there as well.


It seems to me this allows for an exception for certain conductors that are part of a cable assembly, oddly (at least to my way of thinking) including NM.


Does it seem odd that they used the term 'encased in a raceway'? How can anything be "encased" in a raceway?

Or you can run the communications cables in some kind of plastic cable and that is fine too.
Click to expand...

I am in agreement with all this. Interestingly, type SE cables are not on that list.
 
Ok. Lets take this a step at a time.

We have a length of conduit open at both ends. Clearly a chase.

If someone were to (somehow) run INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTORS like THWN for power through that chase and wanted to run CL2 or CM along with them you can't do it.

If the power is run using a CABLE ASSEMBLY such as UF, NM, AC, MC, TC, SE, SER etc. you NO LONGER HAVE INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTORS. Then it is fine to run your LV along with it.

This is no different than running power and LV within a stud bay. You could even ty-rap them together.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
Ok. Lets take this a step at a time.

We have a length of conduit open at both ends. Clearly a chase.

If someone were to (somehow) run INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTORS like THWN for power through that chase and wanted to run CL2 or CM along with them you can't do it.

If the power is run using a CABLE ASSEMBLY such as UF, NM, AC, MC, TC, SE, SER etc. you NO LONGER HAVE INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTORS. Then it is fine to run your LV along with it.

This is no different than running power and LV within a stud bay. You could even ty-rap them together.

-Hal
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
hbiss said:
If the power is run using a CABLE ASSEMBLY such as UF, NM, AC, MC, TC, SE, SER etc. you NO LONGER HAVE INDIVIDUAL CONDUCTORS. Then it is fine to run your LV along with it.

This is no different than running power and LV within a stud bay. You could even ty-rap them together.

-Hal
Click to expand...

Well there is the 2" seperation requirement if the LV are article 800 cables. Some cable types are in the exception, but SE and tc are not on that list.
 
Yes, but READ IT!

(2) Other Applications. Communications wires and cables
shall be separated at least 50 mm (2 in.) from conductors of
any electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire
alarm, or medium-power network-powered broadband communications
circuits.

-Hal
 
hbiss said:
Yes, but READ IT!

(2) Other Applications. Communications wires and cables
shall be separated at least 50 mm (2 in.) from conductors of
any electric light, power, Class 1, non–power-limited fire
alarm, or medium-power network-powered broadband communications
circuits.

-Hal
Click to expand...

Cables contain conductors. Besides, look at the exception. Why do they go about exempting certain cable assemblies if they werent covered under that section in the first place? That makes no logical sense.
 
I'm not going to explain the difference between individual conductors and a cable assembly. We've discussed that many times here for people who don't understand the difference.

Besides, look at the exception. Why do they go about exempting certain cable assemblies if they werent covered under that section in the first place? That makes no logical sense.
Click to expand...

Raceway or metalsheathed, metal-clad, nonmetallic-sheathed, type AC, or type UF cables. What did they leave out??

-Hal
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top