PVC under roadway or parking lot

[Gregg Harris]

Yes I am glad you did.

I aparently had to repost what you posted because someone did not want to associate (D4) with 300.5(D) go figure.

 

[Hv&Lv]

Take a look at 300.50(1)(B) it takes the ambiguity right out of it.

Are we discussing over 600 volts here? I thought we were on under 600 volts...

 

[Hv&Lv]

Perhaps I should have posted 300.5 (D) Protection from Damage. Direct buried conductors and cables shall be protected from damage in accordance with 300.5(D)(1) through (D)(4).

Subsection (D)(4) Enclosure or Raceway Damage. Where the enclosure or raceway is subject to physical damage,the conductors shall be installed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit,Schedule 80 PVC conduit or equivalent.

I should have not assumed that all viewers of the post would know that an Article is broken down into Sections and then into Subsections.

What is "subject to physical damage"? This is the part I was refering to as being ambiguous...
My physical damage definition may be different than yours. The inspector may have a different definition. It is subjective

 

[Hv&Lv]

300.50(B) states that raceway emerging from the ground require protection to 8 feet above grade or to the point of entrance. How many would consider 2 1/2 feet down from a meter base to an LB that enters the structure subject to physical damage. Raceway does not emerge from the ground and there is 2 1/2 feet from finish grade to bottom of LB. As a rule, I say if it is within 3 feet of finish grade, regardless if it goes into the ground it is considered subject to damage.

I think you are on the wrong code reference. 300.5 doesn't clearly define physical damage. You proved the ruling is subjective rather than defined with "As a rule, I say if it is within 3 feet of finish grade, regardless if it goes into the ground it is considered subject to damage."

 

[Gregg Harris]

Are we discussing over 600 volts here? I thought we were on under 600 volts...

There was no mention of voltage from the OP but since the criteria is the same and they both reference the use of PVC 80 that was in the OP I posted it.

 

[kwired]

What is "subject to physical damage"? This is the part I was refering to as being ambiguous...
My physical damage definition may be different than yours. The inspector may have a different definition. It is subjective

You hit the nail square on the head. Same installation in different location may have different level of being subject to damage. You also can provide additional protection from damage, like guard strips, bollards, or whatever works for what is considered the main threat for physical damage. I don't fully get the idea that most have that every PVC raceway that emerges from the ground is subject to physical damage. I generally use sch80 if emerging outdoors but have seen many cases where only sch 40 was used and had been there for a long time - no damage. I have also seen many cases of sch 80 being damaged. If emerging in a parking lot or something similar even RMC will likely get damaged at some time - probably by snow removal equipment.

 

[Gregg Harris]

You hit the nail square on the head. Same installation in different location may have different level of being subject to damage. You also can provide additional protection from damage, like guard strips, bollards, or whatever works for what is considered the main threat for physical damage. I don't fully get the idea that most have that every PVC raceway that emerges from the ground is subject to physical damage. I generally use sch80 if emerging outdoors but have seen many cases where only sch 40 was used and had been there for a long time - no damage. I have also seen many cases of sch 80 being damaged. If emerging in a parking lot or something similar even RMC will likely get damaged at some time - probably by snow removal equipment.

300.5 only states that the conductors need to be protected when emerging from grade by an enclosure or raceway, which can be schedule 40 pvc, but if the enclosure or raceway is subject to damage 300.5(D)(4) and you choose to use PVC then it is required to be schedule 80.


In 300.50(B) emerging from the ground installed on poles, if PVC is chosen it needs to be schedule 80.


Now subject to damage, would either need to be determined by common sense or the AHJ.

 

[Hv&Lv]

Now subject to damage, would either need to be determined by common sense or the AHJ.

That is the ambiguous part...

 

[jxofaltrds]

300.5 only states that the conductors need to be protected when emerging from grade by an enclosure or raceway, which can be schedule 40 pvc, but if the enclosure or raceway is subject to damage 300.5(D)(4) and you choose to use PVC then it is required to be schedule 80.

I do not see how you could ever make me use schedule 80.

If I have it in schedule 40 when you show up to inspect it it is not subject to "physical" damage! :happyyes:

 

[Hv&Lv]

I do not see how you could ever make me use schedule 80.

If I have it in schedule 40 when you show up to inspect it it is not subject to "physical" damage! :happyyes:

I agree, not according to 300.5 anyway...