Sleeves

Status
Not open for further replies.
romex jockey

romex jockey

Senior Member
Location
Vermont
Occupation
electrician
Garage wired via rx. in shmurf flex >>
WtxcE5X.jpg

YQF15Ie.jpg


thoughts??
~RJ~
 
Here's what's permitted for protection of NM cable:

334.15(B) Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, Type RTRC marked with the suffix -XW, or other approved means.
Click to expand...

Smurf would need to fall under "other approved means" to meet the NEC.
 
The title of that section is "exposed work". If you cover the cells involved with drywall or paneling or plywood, that would also be considered sufficient protection and may be less expensive to implement when the cables are already installed should the inspector reject the smurf solution.
 
romex jockey said:
It's a resi garage Growler, so rakes, shovels, etc ....i wuz thinkin' physical protection.....~RJ~
Click to expand...


Code wise requiring physical protection is about as ambiguous as it can get.

There are inspectors that will turn this install down and others that would let it pass.
 
I believe the crux of the question is whether the tube is not acceptable whereas the exposed NM would be. Does the use of the tube create a violation? I'd say no, it doesn't worsen the installation.
 
LarryFine said:
I believe the crux of the question is whether the tube is not acceptable whereas the exposed NM would be. Does the use of the tube create a violation? I'd say no, it doesn't worsen the installation.
Click to expand...

I agree it doesn't make it worse. But does it make it better? As mentioned, 334.15(B) doesn't specifically say smurf is an approved means of protection. It's open to interpretation. I hate when things are open to interpretation. Interpretation costs me money.

ETA: Smurf is much more flimsy than schedule 40 and schedule 40 is apparently not an allowed method since schedule 80 was called out.

 
Coppersmith said:
Interpretation costs me money.
Click to expand...
Kinda like having contact with the police. Every time it happens, it costs me time, freedom, money, or various combinations.
ETA: Smurf is much more flimsy than schedule 40 and schedule 40 is apparently not an allowed method since schedule 80 was called out.
Click to expand...
Apparently sched 40 is looked at as being no tougher than NM, MC, or even EMT.
 
Coppersmith said:
I agree it doesn't make it worse. But does it make it better? As mentioned, 334.15(B) doesn't specifically say smurf is an approved means of protection. It's open to interpretation. I hate when things are open to interpretation. Interpretation costs me money.

ETA: Smurf is much more flimsy than schedule 40 and schedule 40 is apparently not an allowed method since schedule 80 was called out.
Click to expand...

I to hate things that are open to interpretation.

If unfinished garages or unfinished basements require physical protection for wiring they could just come right out a say so. They could also state what level of protection.
 
Type MC can be installed exposed. It would be a better choice for garages with exposed wiring. It's interesting to note that it's much more flimsy than the schedule 80 or rigid required to protect NM.

ETA: 330.12 says not allowed where subject to physical damage so I think I'm wrong about MC being allowed.
 
Is the smurf supposed to terminate in a box? On the other end not shown. I was dinged, used greenfield (sleeve) to a water heater once in a basement; so pulled it out just left rx from floor joist to rx conn. on heater.
 
Coppersmith said:
In a complete raceway system, yes. As a sleeve, depends if the thing it's sleeving is properly terminated independent of the sleeve.
Click to expand...

My inspector oked the rx, but did say my short strapped greenfield with conn. and rx stapled looked better but not to code, as greenfield had to terminate in a box. Was in 1982 so code could be different now.
 
I can hardly wait for robot electricians to take over. I can see it all now.

Danger Will Robinson, BS overload, this does not compute.
 
Rereading 334.15(B) I just noticed "Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary"

"Where necessary" is not defined i.e. open to interpretation. I do remember recently having a chief inspector tell me that vertical exposed runs would be fine uncovered, but horizontal exposed portions i.e. "tool hangers" would need protection. He made me cover those with 1x4's.
 
growler said:
I can hardly wait for robot electricians to take over. I can see it all now.

Danger Will Robinson, BS overload, this does not compute.
Click to expand...

How about robot inspectors? Built-in NEC. Extreme consistency. All interpretations recorded and used as precedent for future rulings.
 
Steve, IMO that install is fine however, as others have said there will be an inspector somewhere that will turn it down. We use regular pvc not schedule 80---
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top