romex insulation

Status
Not open for further replies.

WBgreen

Member
My question concerns the insulation surrounding the individual conductors on romex nm cable. I understand that romex cannot go into pvc underground, but THHN can. Therefore the insulation on these two types of wire cannot be the same. I am being told that romex is in fact THHN, Thanks for any input.
 
Actually THHN can not either, but THWN can and since it is usually dual rated, THHN/THWN this conductor can.

The key is that the conductors inside the jacket of NM are not identified/marked per article 310.11 and this means they can not be used in any other way than what is allowed per article 334.

Roger
 
roger said:
Actually THHN can not either, but THWN can and since it is usually dual rated, THHN/THWN this conductor can.

The key is that the conductors inside the jacket of NM are not identified/marked per article 310.11 and this means they can not be used in any other way than what is allowed per article 334.

Roger


Roger hit the nail on the head. I don't think there is anything meaningful that I can add. :smile:
 
romex in p.v.c.

romex in p.v.c.

This seems to be one of those grey areas. Article 334.10 b.1 lists type nm cable permitted in damp and corrosive locations. On Romex packaging from Southwire they classify romex as being n.m.b. No where that i see in the code book of 2002 does it list n.m.b. The insulation is not stamped on the individual wires but certainly appears identical to thhn/thhw except for the plastic that cracks in cold weather anyway. Did I miss the boat on this one or is romex not classified as non-metallic cable? Can you tell me what insulation it is. Also I would have thought the big reason for not allowing romex underground in P.V.C. is for 240 Volt installations because of an unshielded ground .
 
jhc1xh said:
This seems to be one of those grey areas. Article 334.10 b.1 lists type nm cable permitted in damp and corrosive locations.

Underground installations are wet locations even if the conductors are in a raceway.

jhc1xh said:
The insulation is not stamped on the individual wires but certainly appears identical to thhn/thhw except for the plastic that cracks in cold weather anyway.

334.112 The insulated power conductors shall be one of the types listed in Table 310.13 that are suitable for branch circuit wiring or one that is identified for use in these cables. Conductor insulation shall be rated at 90?C (194?F).


But, it is not marked per 310.11 so it is not THHN/THWN and we have to go with 334.80.

334.80 Ampacity
The ampacity of Types NM, NMC, and NMS cable shall be determined in accordance with 310.15. The ampacity shall be in accordance with the 60?C (140?F) conductor temperature rating. The 90?C (194?F) rating shall be permitted to be used for ampacity derating purposes, provided the final derated ampacity does not exceed that for a 60?C (140?F) rated conductor. The ampacity of Types NM, NMC, and NMS cable installed in cable tray shall be determined in accordance with 392.11.


jhc1xh said:
Did I miss the boat on this one or is romex not classified as non-metallic cable?

No, you are right it is NM.

jhc1xh said:
Can you tell me what insulation it is.
See above

jhc1xh said:
Also I would have thought the big reason for not allowing romex underground in P.V.C. is for 240 Volt installations because of an unshielded ground .
Has nothing to do with it.

BTW, welcome to the forum.

Roger
 
Last edited:
jhc1xh said:
On Romex packaging from Southwire they classify romex as being n.m.b. No where that i see in the code book of 2002 does it list n.m.b.

Just to add to the great information that Roger has posted. NM-B is type NM cable, the suffix B denotes that the conductors within the cable are rated at 90 degrees. Take a look at the fpn to 334.112.

Chris

(P.S. welcome to the forum.:))
 
It all boils down to the fact that NM cable is for dry locations only, and UG conduits are defined as a wet location.

334.10(A)(2), Art. 100 definitions, Location,Wet.2002 NEC.
 
It all boils down to a previous thread from last year.
After several pages of NEC code cites,
one of the engineers said that the PAPER liner inside the jacket
conducted water back into the equipment, and drips.

Accordingly,
the physics rules,
and the NEC describes methods to avoid problems.

Take your pick,
but, do not put NM in a wet location.
 
glene77is said:
It all boils down to a previous thread from last year.
After several pages of NEC code cites,
one of the engineers said that the PAPER liner inside the jacket
conducted water back into the equipment, and drips.

No, regardless of what any engineer may have said, it all boils down to what the code requires.

Roger
 
Okay so who is going to find out what the jacket of nm cable is rated. I talked to a salesman last year who insists it is 90C. I have inspectors here saying it is 75C, hence they are only allowing 3 cables through a hole where there isthermal insulation(art.334.80). I have called southwire again to no avail. I want documented proof and cannot seem to find it. Any help would be appreciated.
 
APPLICATIONS​
Southwire's Romex SIMpull ? Type NM-B (nonmetallic-sheathed cable) may be used for both exposed and concealed work
in normally dry locations at temperatures not to exceed 90?C (with ampacity limited to that for 60?C conductors) as specified in​
the National Electrical Code
1
 
RUWired said:
APPLICATIONS​
Southwire's Romex SIMpull ? Type NM-B (nonmetallic-sheathed cable) may be used for both exposed and concealed work
in normally dry locations at temperatures not to exceed 90?C (with ampacity limited to that for 60?C conductors) as specified in​
the National Electrical Code
1

I was thinking they were talking about the inside conductors but you may be correct-- I will present that info thanks.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Dennis
In the PDF, in the paragraph titled CONSTRUCTION, the forth sentence.

"
Conductor insulation is 90?C-rated polyvinyl chloride (PVC), nylon jacketed."​

I know the conductor insulation is 90C, it's the nm covering I was concerned about. I believe the statement ruwired provided verifies that the entire assembly is 90C. Do you agree?
 
roger said:
No, regardless of what any engineer may have said, it all boils down to what the code requires.

Roger

Roger I agree with that and "Glene77is" posted a possible theory and or intent. Which I have heard many times from others.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I know the conductor insulation is 90C, it's the nm covering I was concerned about. I believe the statement ruwired provided verifies that the entire assembly is 90C. Do you agree?

Nope ,..the jacket is irrelavent as it's function is other than that of an insulator..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top