If it has OCP then I don't see any difference or problem. I may have misread into thinking it was SE with no OCP in which case I have some concern about it being "hidden".
SE Cable outside
- Thread starter Andy1099
- Start date
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
I agree. The OP did clarify that this is a feeder.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
He also said he built a soffit below the enclosure, which I took to mean a built covering over the cable, and not the house's soffit. We would probably use an LB or an elbow in this situation when necessary.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
That is exactly how I read it. He called it a soffit which is not the term. It sounds like he built a box around it.
- Location
- Tennessee NEC:2017
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrician
It's a soffit box!
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
This Exposed=subject to physical damage thing drives me bananas 
I agree with Fred that most of the time surface mounted cables are actually safer than hidden (don't forget about rodents in addition to errant nails screws and drills).
I agree with Fred that most of the time surface mounted cables are actually safer than hidden (don't forget about rodents in addition to errant nails screws and drills).
letgomywago
Senior Member
- Location
- Washington state and Oregon coast
- Occupation
- residential electrician
So this then begs the question. Should the NEC define what's subject to physical damage? This is a can of worms but would you welcome everyone getting the same can? Maybe replacing the term with the UL crush requirements for each wiring methodThis Exposed=subject to physical damage thing drives me bananas
I agree with Fred that most of the time surface mounted cables are actually safer than hidden (don't forget about rodents in addition to errant nails screws and drills).
NEC_NERD
Member
- Location
- Ocklawaha, FL
- Occupation
- Electrician
I know this is acceptable in many jurisdictions but as mentioned above "subject to physical damage" is not clearly defined in the NEC so it's left up to the discretion of the inspector/AHJ. 230.50(b) would then come into play. 1-5 are cut and dry but 6 also allows the inspector to use his discretion on whether or not the installation is an "approved means" of protection. Throw it in conduit and call it a day.
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
I think they should. For example perhaps they could state that where there is a driveway a zone from grade to 4 feet would be SFD, and on non driveway sides maybe grade to 1 foot (for weed whacking and landscaping activities - usually there's foundation there so typically not mounting cables there anyway). Other than that, I just don't at all see how any other zone on the surface of a house is SFD.
letgomywago
Senior Member
- Location
- Washington state and Oregon coast
- Occupation
- residential electrician
That'd be alright with me but WA says it's 10 ft up
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Ridiculous
letgomywago
Senior Member
- Location
- Washington state and Oregon coast
- Occupation
- residential electrician
What I find funny is that is only for nonmetalic sheathed cables. They allow mc but mc has the same crush rating as nm
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Or even PVC. Id bet on SE cable over PVC for impact type of damage.
letgomywago
Senior Member
- Location
- Washington state and Oregon coast
- Occupation
- residential electrician
Schedule 80 is on the list of suitable for physical damage