Romex in conduit to panel

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't say if it is a violation or not but I do think it is the largest waste of time and conduit I've seen in a long time.

If I paid my guy to do that I'd be pissed - 2 romex wires in one hole - they always will fit - and as was said earlier - loop around to the bottom of the panel if you have more to go in.

Sometimes common sense rules the code.
 
sb1280 said:
I thought I had it figured out on posting pictures, but obviously I don't.
090316%20Lot%201587%20-13.jpg

or
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/phot...authkey=Gv1sRgCPnMkv_ZgqqXoQE&feat=directlink
Click to expand...




As the picture stands, this is not a violation as the panels are surface mounted.
If the installation is going to cover the raceways with sheetrock or equivalent, than that would constitute a violation.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
As the picture stands, this is not a violation as the panels are surface mounted.
If the installation is going to cover the raceways with sheetrock or equivalent, than that would constitute a violation.
Click to expand...

It looks to me like this wall is going to get finished. I vote violation.
 
C3PO said:
It looks to me like this wall is going to get finished. I vote violation.
Click to expand...



One of the statements I heard alot as an inspector was "what if".

As the picture stands, it is not a violation. How many basements or garages have we all been in where the framing was there, yet no wall enclosing had occured?

The job of an inspector for this install is relatively easy.
"Mr. Electrician, do you or does the contractor plan on finishing the surface of the wall around the panel enclosures?"
If his answer is no, it is on to the next job.
If his answer is yes, then a further discussion is in order.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
One of the statements I heard alot as an inspector was "what if".

As the picture stands, it is not a violation. How many basements or garages have we all been in where the framing was there, yet no wall enclosing had occured?

The job of an inspector for this install is relatively easy.
"Mr. Electrician, do you or does the contractor plan on finishing the surface of the wall around the panel enclosures?"
If his answer is no, it is on to the next job.
If his answer is yes, then a further discussion is in order.
Click to expand...

There is the issue or over filling the conduit...
 
RonPecinaJr said:
Good luck getting those flush panel covers on later without them over lapping one another.
Click to expand...

Most only extend ?" from the can, for just such a situation as this. I've never run into trouble putting tubs side-by-side in 2x4 stud walls and having problems with the covers overlapping.
 
Looks like a violation of conduit over fill. The following infomation is taken from chapter 9 Tables (Notes to Tables)

The diameter of a #12-2 NM cable is approximately .15025 inch using the formula of (Pi r?) (3.141 X .21875?) = (3.141 X .04785) = .15033? inches per NM cable. A 2 inch sch 40 PVC conduit has a 40% fill of 1.316? inches. The maximum number of 12-2 NM cables is 1.316 / .15033 = 8.75 Cables per 2 inch conduit, Chapter 9 Note 9. This number can be rounded to 9 cables in each 2 inch sch 40 RNC per Note 7.
 
See the notes to conduit fill:

(2) Table 1 applies only to complete conduit or tubing systems and is not intended to apply to sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring from physical damage.

The fill tables don't apply to this installation as long as there is no jbox or gutter at the top of the conduit. However, thermal derating may apply to the rightmost panel, since that conduit looks longer than 24".
 
so does anyone else bring your romex down the side cavity and enter the panel through the bottom knockouts, or am i alone in this?

i've yet to encounter a 42 space panel that didn't have enough KO's.

i use up all the bottom KO's before bringing anything in the top.
 
brantmacga said:
so does anyone else bring your romex down the side cavity and enter the panel through the bottom knockouts, or am i alone in this?

i've yet to encounter a 42 space panel that didn't have enough KO's.

i use up all the bottom KO's before bringing anything in the top.
Click to expand...

Even if all your HRs are coming in from above?
 
Can't be sure if this is a violation of Section 310.15(B)(2)(a)

Can't be sure if this is a violation of Section 310.15(B)(2)(a)

While it seems there are plenty of violations to go around for this installation, I just wanted to throw this out there for my own understanding?


Jim W in Tampa States: ?If its over 2 feet then derate comes into play?

And

Twoskinsoneman states: ?Also funny to comply with the exception the raceway has to be 18" but if more than 24" you have to derate...?


As I understand this?
This could easily comply with the NEC as far as conductors in proximity and may NOT be a violation of Section 310.15(B)(2)(a).

We can only see what is in the photo and have no information on the individual circuit lengths, and whether or not the individual circuits are subject to additional conductor proximity.

As I understand this?
The exception to Section 310.15(A)(2) permits the conductors to be in proximity for as much as 10 feet (if conditions are met?) without considering the requirements of 310.15(B)(2)(a).


It appears to me that not enough information is available to call this a violation for proximity (bundling)?

mweaver
 
suemarkp said:
See the notes to conduit fill:

(2) Table 1 applies only to complete conduit or tubing systems and is not intended to apply to sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring from physical damage.

The fill tables don't apply to this installation as long as there is no jbox or gutter at the top of the conduit. However, thermal derating may apply to the rightmost panel, since that conduit looks longer than 24".
Click to expand...

312.5(C)(g) does make fill tables applicable.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
As the picture stands, this is not a violation as the panels are surface mounted.
If the installation is going to cover the raceways with sheetrock or equivalent, than that would constitute a violation.
Click to expand...

I would point out that, since we do not see the other end of the conduits, we cannot tell if this meets all the provisions of 312.5(C), exception.
 
Another Photo

Another Photo

Maybe I'll get the image posting figured out.

090316Lot1587-11.jpg


And the wall will be drywalled.

There are 880 amps of breakers in the left panel with 200 amp main.
There are 600 amps of breakers in middle panel with 200 amp main.
The right panel is a 100 amp panel feed from the middle panel with about 160 amps of breakers.
 
sb1280 said:
Maybe I'll get the image posting figured out.

090316Lot1587-11.jpg



There are 880 amps of breakers in the left panel with 200 amp main.
There are 600 amps of breakers in middle panel with 200 amp main.
The right panel is a 100 amp panel feed from the middle panel with about 160 amps of breakers.
Click to expand...

This does not matter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top