Same raceway or not?

[iwire]

I have been designing, commissioning and troubleshooting such systems for the past 40 years.

Paranoia comes from lack of knowledge. I used to prescribe the rigourous separation of power and signal cabling, but I am not so stuck on it any longer and it is based on lengthy and mass amount of experience.

I bow before the great arrogant one.

My experience says that properly shielded and grounded cables will be protected from interference.

This subject has nothing to do with interference, the NEC could not care less about the performance of the system.

The NEC is concerned with safety and if line volt conductors energize class II cabling or the like we have an unsafe condition.

The Code permits it and the installation can be performed without resulting operational or safety problems.

You are in fact wrong, the code does not permit the installation of these systems together no mater how much experience you have.

You do realize it is engineers like yourself with your 'I know it all attitude' that give the good engineers a a black eye.

Take Charlie B for instance, he is very knowledgeable in many subjects but he does not find it necessary to arrogant. :smile:

 

[weressl]

I bow before the great arrogant one.

This subject has nothing to do with interference, the NEC could not care less about the performance of the system.

The NEC is concerned with safety and if line volt conductors energize class II cabling or the like we have an unsafe condition.



You are in fact wrong, the code does not permit the installation of these systems together no mater how much experience you have.

You do realize it is engineers like yourself with your 'I know it all attitude' that give the good engineers a a black eye.

Take Charlie B for instance, he is very knowledgeable in many subjects but he does not find it necessary to arrogant. :smile:

Looking in the mirror?

The code DOES permit the installation of the wiring in the same raceway.

I was a helper, then an electrician, then a technician, then an engineer.

725 would be applicable if the reader does not belong to the dispenser. It does and therefore 725.1 FIRST sentence excludes itself.

As I said the Code permits it and technologically is it a viable solution.

 

[weressl]

If you're trying to say it's ok to install a communications cable in the same conduit with the power wiring to the dispenser:

1) You're wrong - Read NEC 800.133(A)(1)(c)
and
2) You're arrogant - Read Proverbs 16:18:smile:

I did, and please you do so yourself. 800.133(A)(2) Exception #1. Read also my original stipulation with 725.55(H) - meant to say (J)(1) <same as above, but not exception>, if that would be applicable which it is not but the fellow who questioned the application refered to that paragraph.

The mote in your neighbors eye....

 

[cowboyjwc]

For what it's worth.... According to this contractor I am the only inspector in the state of Ohio that has a problem with what was originally proposed. After that statement, I called just about every other inspector I know and also posted the question here. I was told by a much more seasoned inspector when I started "Look for the ways to approve a job, not the ways to fail it." I took this as sage advice and do my best to do so every day.

Pete

Of course you are. "I've never heard of such a thing", "you're the only jurisdiction that calls that", "I've been doing this for ___ years and you're the only inspector that has ever asked for that." I was going to write a paphlet that had all the excuses numbered, hand it out and then they could just say "12" and save us a lot of time.

As we say here, it's much easier to sign the job card than to write a correction notice.

 

[rlMutch]

I did, and please you do so yourself. 800.133(A)(2) Exception #1. Read also my original stipulation with 725.55(H) - meant to say (J)(1) <same as above, but not exception>, if that would be applicable which it is not but the fellow who questioned the application refered to that paragraph.

The mote in your neighbors eye....

There's several issues here, but the 2 major ones are:
1) Can the two systems be installed in the same raceway?
2) Can the two systems occupy the same enclosure?

1) I think this is an article 800 installation (data cable), but since you want to use article 725, I'll give you my opinion on both. The raceway feeding the dispenser is covered in 725.55(A) not (H) or (J)(1). The general rule (A) says they can't share the same raceway. (B) thru (J) are other places where the seperation is dealt with. An example of a (J) Other Application is when cables share the same bored hole in a residential application. The 2 in seperation can be omitted if (1) or (2) is met. 800.133 is pretty much the same. 800.133(A)(1)(c) says they can't occupy the same raceway. 800.133(A)(2) doesn't apply to raceways.

2) These 2 systems may occupy the same enclosure (dispenser) using the above rules, after they arrive at the dispenser in seperate conduits.

The arrogant comment probably was un-called for. Sorry

 

[coulter]

Rod -
Just curious - Why is it you think this is an article 800 installation? I read all of the posts, and I didn't see anything about the mfg specs or installation instructions. Did I miss something?

I have the same question for the rest of the posters that are advocating one article or another. How did you pick that particular article? Do you have knowledge of the mfg specs or installation instructions?

I didn't see any mention of a brand name, so I don't think anyone looked it up on the internet.

nakaluk mentioned this in post 6, but I didn't see anyone respond.

carl

 

[rlMutch]

Rod -
Just curious - Why is it you think this is an article 800 installation?

It's a card reader cable to the dispenser. Probably a data cable tied into the phone system in the building as opposed to a remote-control, signaling circuit. See 725.1 and 800.1
The seperation requirements basically are the same for both articles.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Lazlo,

I did, and please you do so yourself. 800.133(A)(2) Exception #1

The installation in question is in a raceway. I don't believe that this is an Article 800 application, but even if it is, how does 800.133(A)(2) apply?.
Don

 

[iwire]

The code DOES permit the installation of the wiring in the same raceway.

I was a helper, then an electrician, then a technician, then an engineer.

725 would be applicable if the reader does not belong to the dispenser. It does and therefore 725.1 FIRST sentence excludes itself.

As I said the Code permits it and technologically is it a viable solution.

You have been given the applicable code sections for both 725 and 800 and still you do not see what is written.

If you designed it with both communication cabling and line volt in the same raceway the installation would fail NEC inspection.

There is a slight chance that you could reclassify per 725.52(A) Exception 2 the class 2 or 2 to class 1 but often that is hard to execute and still remains a poor design.

Lazlo, for commercial electricians this type of application is a normal day to day thing.

We always run separate raceways and you are not the first to question the need to.

A good example of this is the supplies to cash registers at any chain store.

A raceway to each for communication circuits and one or two other raceways for 'clean and dirty' power.

As customer you may just see a single power pole coming down to a register but the pole is compartmentalized.

Believe me many ECs would love to 'get out of' running separate conduits in many instances but they have no choice, it is an NEC requirement.

Bob

 

[weressl]

Lazlo,

The installation in question is in a raceway. I don't believe that this is an Article 800 application, but even if it is, how does 800.133(A)(2) apply?.
Don

Section 90 Definitions:

Communications Equipment.​

​

​

The electronic equipment that performs the telecommunications operations for the transmission of audio, video, and data, and includes power equipment (e.g., dc converters, inverters, and batteries) and technical support equipment (e.g., computers).
​

800.133 Installation of Communications Wires, Cables, and Equipment.​

(A) Separation from Other Conductors.​

(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.​

Exception No. 1: Where either (1) all of the conductors of
the electric light, power, Class 1, non?power-limited fire
alarm, and medium-power network-powered broadband
communications circuits are in a raceway or in metalsheathed,
metal-clad, nonmetallic-sheathed, Type AC, or
Type UF cables, or (2) all of the conductors of communications
circuits are encased in raceway.

I the argument here is that MC, AC, UF cable is equivalent of a raceway so a "raceway" within a raceway will provide the intended separation.​

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Laszlo,
That section just does not apply as we have a raceway and 800.133(A)(1) applies. As far as the application of Article 800, I agree that the definition of "communications equipment" would tend to indicate that data systesm are covered by this article, you really have to look to the scope of the article and apply that information. It has been generally accepted that Article 725 applies to these types of installations. However it really doesn't make any difference as the seperation rules are almost the same.
Don

 

[weressl]

Laszlo,
That section just does not apply as we have a raceway and 800.133(A)(1) applies. As far as the application of Article 800, I agree that the definition of "communications equipment" would tend to indicate that data systesm are covered by this article, you really have to look to the scope of the article and apply that information. It has been generally accepted that Article 725 applies to these types of installations. However it really doesn't make any difference as the seperation rules are almost the same.
Don

You are correct the separation rules are ALMOST the same, in one case it is actually part of the narrative in the other it is an exception.

I believe that even though you are installing the system in the raceway, the (J) Other Applications, is still applicable. My reasoning being is that the listed cables are normally does not require to be installed because their construction offers equivalent protection of a raceway therefore this installation is "other". The Code's intent is very clear, to me, that they want to maintain a hard separation, primariliy for insulation purposes and fire propagation from one susyem to the other. I think that the AC, MC cable provides that and as I mentioned before that proper shielding and draining the shield assures signal integrity along with the built in signal error discriminating feature.

I have discussed this with a lawyer friend of mine who also has an engineering degree, and he said that it would stand up in court, in his opinion of course.

 

[weressl]

You have been given the applicable code sections for both 725 and 800 and still you do not see what is written.

If you designed it with both communication cabling and line volt in the same raceway the installation would fail NEC inspection.

There is a slight chance that you could reclassify per 725.52(A) Exception 2 the class 2 or 2 to class 1 but often that is hard to execute and still remains a poor design.

Lazlo, for commercial electricians this type of application is a normal day to day thing.

We always run separate raceways and you are not the first to question the need to.

A good example of this is the supplies to cash registers at any chain store.

A raceway to each for communication circuits and one or two other raceways for 'clean and dirty' power.

As customer you may just see a single power pole coming down to a register but the pole is compartmentalized.

Believe me many ECs would love to 'get out of' running separate conduits in many instances but they have no choice, it is an NEC requirement.

Bob

Bob, please see my reply @ http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?p=749510&posted=1#post749510

I'm glad you choose a cordial tone

Thanks,

 

[M. D.]

You know, my Dad always used the expression "Pride goeth before a fall" but I'd never seen the verse he'd gleaned it from until now. Thanks.

My first recollection of it comes from The Beatles in the song "I'm a looser"

And so it's true, pride comes before a fall
I'm telling you so that you won't lose all

:grin:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I have discussed this with a lawyer friend of mine who also has an engineering degree, and he said that it would stand up in court, in his opinion of course.

The only opinion that counts when you go that route is one held by at least 5 of the supreme court justices.

 

[rlMutch]

Just an update... After looking more closely for solutions, the contractor in this instance will be able to combine the credit card reader wiring with the intercom wiring in a common raceway. This will require a bit of re-work inside the building, but I think it beats cutting a new trench to the building and installing a separate conduit.

For what it's worth.... According to this contractor I am the only inspector in the state of Ohio that has a problem with what was originally proposed. After that statement, I called just about every other inspector I know and also posted the question here. I was told by a much more seasoned inspector when I started "Look for the ways to approve a job, not the ways to fail it." I took this as sage advice and do my best to do so every day.

Pete

I'm glad you found a legal way to do this. I always look for ways to approve a job also, but when you run into a clear code violation such as this, there's just no way you can approve it.

 

[weressl]

The only opinion that counts when you go that route is one held by at least 5 of the supreme court justices.

I note that you failed to address the technical aspect of the issue. Your statement is only true on appeal. I would seriously doubt that the Supreme Court would EVER hear such a case and remand it to the lower court.

 

[smithacetech]

What do you think of this?

If the raceway in question is outside, underground, wouldnt it be covered in 800.47 under section II titled, "wires & cables outside & entering buildings" & not 800.133 under section V titled, "communications wires & cables within buildings"?

If so then 800.47(A) says it shall be in a section seperated by means of a suitable barrier. Now wouldn't the methods that weressl has suggested work because its not requireing seperate raceway but a seperate section of the raceway???

 

[weressl]

What do you think of this?

If the raceway in question is outside, underground, wouldnt it be covered in 800.47 under section II titled, "wires & cables outside & entering buildings" & not 800.133 under section V titled, "communications wires & cables within buildings"?

If so then 800.47(A) says it shall be in a section seperated by means of a suitable barrier. Now wouldn't the methods that weressl has suggested work because its not requireing seperate raceway but a seperate section of the raceway???

I stipulate that the approved cables themselves are equivalent to a separate raceway because they offer equivalent protection. That is why they are discussed in the "other" cases.

In my opinion the Code repeatedly demonstrates what KIND of separation do they intend to require and that is met by the cited paragraphs.