stubbing out uf cable for an outdoor receptacle

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

difowler1

Senior Member
I haven't found if it is or isn't authorized to stub out uf cable for an outdoor receptacle on a single family dwelling, without running the stub out through the wall in some sort of conduit, flex, etc. The uf cable would be ran through the OSB siding, tyvek, and then be placed in a box within a brick wall as usual.

Under 340.12 uses not permitted, it says that uf cable is not permitted "embedded in poured cement, concrete, or aggregate.

The exterior of the house will be brick, but that doesn't mean the uf cable would be in "poured cement".

UF cable is permitted in wet, dry, or corrosive location, but that isn't really the issue. I believe the intention of the conduit sleeve was to protect the wire from damage. So we get into the subject of "where subject to physical damage?"

Is there a code reference I am missing on this subject?
 
As long as it is protected during construction (or at least not damaged) I cannot think of any section that would require a sleeve of any sort.
 
stubbing out uf cable for an outdoor receptacle

I have been red tagged on an inspection for not installing a sleeve on a NMB moisture resistant romex stub out. I don't know why it would be different for uf cable. Local jurisdiction?
 
Well, moisture-resistant is not weather-resistant.

NEC 110.11 said:
110.11 Deteriorating Agents. Unless identified for use in the operating environment, no conductors or equipment shall be located in damp or wet locations; where exposed to gases, fumes, vapors, liquids, or other agents that have a deteriorating effect on the conductors or equipment; or where exposed to excessive temperatures.
...
Equipment not identified for outdoor use and equipment identified only for indoor use, such as “dry locations,” “indoor use only,” “damp locations,” or enclosure Types 1, 2, 5, 12, 12K, and/or 13, shall be protected against damage from the weather during construction.
Click to expand...

So the romex shouldn't be outside, and if stubbed out, he or she probably called you out on 110.11.

But the UF can be installed outside, so the only protection needed is from nicks, cuts, pinches, and the like. Not from the water.
 
Is it really outside when installed in a weather proof box directly installed on the house? What would you do with an A/C disconnect, run UF for the whole circuit? I think the inspector is reaching a little bit.
 
Gaffen99 said:
Is it really outside when installed in a weather proof box directly installed on the house? What would you do with an A/C disconnect, run UF for the whole circuit? I think the inspector is reaching a little bit.
Click to expand...

I agree. But it seems that some inspectors/AHJ's think that this is a wet location and NM is not approved for wet location. I think this started when the NEC made clear that a raceway outside or underground is a wet location. This is something that I think the code is going to have to clear up at some point.
 
texie said:
I agree. But it seems that some inspectors/AHJ's think that this is a wet location and NM is not approved for wet location. I think this started when the NEC made clear that a raceway outside or underground is a wet location. This is something that I think the code is going to have to clear up at some point.
Click to expand...
Giving full consideration to the condensation argument that makes an outside raceway a wet location:
The box itself, although waterproof, if fed moist air from the penetration through the vapor barrier, could condense moisture inside. It would be worse if a conduit or PVC stub surrounded the NM and left a larger air opening.

The Tyvek is an air-infiltration barrier and not a vapor barrier, so it would depend on what side of the actual vapor barrier in the interior wall the NM started at.
 
GoldDigger said:
Giving full consideration to the condensation argument that makes an outside raceway a wet location:
The box itself, although waterproof, if fed moist air from the penetration through the vapor barrier, could condense moisture inside. It would be worse if a conduit or PVC stub surrounded the NM and left a larger air opening.

The Tyvek is an air-infiltration barrier and not a vapor barrier, so it would depend on what side of the actual vapor barrier in the interior wall the NM started at.
Click to expand...

Sorry Gold, I gotta disagree. This a legal install IMO.
 
GoldDigger said:
Giving full consideration to the condensation argument that makes an outside raceway a wet location:
The box itself, although waterproof, if fed moist air from the penetration through the vapor barrier, could condense moisture inside. It would be worse if a conduit or PVC stub surrounded the NM and left a larger air opening.

The Tyvek is an air-infiltration barrier and not a vapor barrier, so it would depend on what side of the actual vapor barrier in the interior wall the NM started at.
Click to expand...

OK, but the question still remains, can you stub out an NM cable to, say, an outside light or A/C disco and be compliant? Many inpectors/AHJ's are starting to question this. I'm not sure what camp I'm in on this, but it has been done forever in most areas. It would seem that to meet the letter of the NEC this is not compliant.
 
texie said:
OK, but the question still remains, can you stub out an NM cable to, say, an outside light or A/C disco and be compliant? Many inpectors/AHJ's are starting to question this. I'm not sure what camp I'm in on this, but it has been done forever in most areas. It would seem that to meet the letter of the NEC this is not compliant.
Click to expand...


Are breakers for an outside panel required to be "wet location rated?"
 
jumper said:
[/B]

Are breakers for an outside panel required to be "wet location rated?"
Click to expand...

Oh, I see your point and I've pointed that out before. Yet some think that NM cable can't penetrate the wall for, say, a light fixture. Consider the typical low budget tract house wiring with an outside panel for all the branch circuits-done all the time. Then you get the argument that that is OK but the NM going to an outside light is not. I've actualy seen inspectors make this argument. Seems kind of nuts to me.
 
texie said:
Oh, I see your point and I've pointed that out before. Yet some think that NM cable can't penetrate the wall for, say, a light fixture. Consider the typical low budget tract house wiring with an outside panel for all the branch circuits-done all the time. Then you get the argument that that is OK but the NM going to an outside light is not. I've actualy seen inspectors make this argument. Seems kind of nuts to me.
Click to expand...

That's 'cause those 'spectors are nuts.:D
 
I think some clarification is needed: the OP didn't say that NM to an exterior box was what the violation was written for. The failure as I read it was for 'stubbing-out' NM cable, which I read as a whip in the weather for days before the siding is installed.

The question seemed to be whether a sleeve would be required. I don't think a sleeve would have any effect on the NM / UF issue, and should not be relevant to the inspector.
 
The inside of a pipe is going to have different temps to the outside when under ground or elsewhere. We are talking about a box on the side of a house. What if it is a old work box for an outside gfci outlet, is the box outside if it serves an outside device even though it is cut into the siding. And again, what do you do with an A/C disconnect?
 
difowler1 said:
I haven't found if it is or isn't authorized to stub out uf cable for an outdoor receptacle on a single family dwelling, without running the stub out through the wall in some sort of conduit, flex, etc. The uf cable would be ran through the OSB siding, tyvek, and then be placed in a box within a brick wall as usual.

Under 340.12 uses not permitted, it says that uf cable is not permitted "embedded in poured cement, concrete, or aggregate.

The exterior of the house will be brick, but that doesn't mean the uf cable would be in "poured cement".

UF cable is permitted in wet, dry, or corrosive location, but that isn't really the issue. I believe the intention of the conduit sleeve was to protect the wire from damage. So we get into the subject of "where subject to physical damage?"

Is there a code reference I am missing on this subject?
Click to expand...

UF should be OK, NM-B no.
NM-B ends at the vapor barrior as other codes define the vapor barrier as the beginning of the damp location.

NM-B to a AC disco would be a code violation however it is permitted under 90.4, I see often if not weekly, it is 1/2" to 1/4" of cable if it goes straight through. Not a big deal.

What kind of connector do you use to terminate the cable to the box? Could be an issue there.
 
tortuga said:
UF should be OK, NM-B no.
NM-B ends at the vapor barrior as other codes define the vapor barrier as the beginning of the damp location.

NM-B to a AC disco would be a code violation however it is permitted under 90.4, I see often if not weekly, it is 1/2" to 1/4" of cable if it goes straight through. Not a big deal.

What kind of connector do you use to terminate the cable to the box? Could be an issue there .
Click to expand...
RX connector is the only thing legal.
 
tortuga said:
UF should be OK, NM-B no.
NM-B ends at the vapor barrior as other codes define the vapor barrier as the beginning of the damp location.
Click to expand...
So, under that interpretation, just wiring up interior receptacles in an outside wall will require use of UF, even if there is no outside connection at all?
The vapor barrier on an outside wall will typically be right behind the finish wallboard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top