SE Cable outside

Status
Not open for further replies.
infinity said:
Augie, any particular reason why you would be concerned? SE cable in the soffit would be required to be run using the same rules as NM cable so if those rules are followed is the SE cable run in a soffit unsafe?
Click to expand...
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".
 
augie47 said:
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".
Click to expand...
I agree. The OP did clarify that this is a feeder.
 
LarryFine said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
electrofelon said:
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).
Click to expand...
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 method
 
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.
 
letgomywago said:
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 method
Click to expand...
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.
 
electrofelon said:
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.
Click to expand...
That'd be alright with me but WA says it's 10 ft up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top