UF cable and NMS cable

Status
Not open for further replies.
dinorelyz

dinorelyz

Member
Location
Los Angeles, California
Hi, Im so confused can anyone help me please :?

My question is.. Is it permissible to use UF Cable as branch circuit wiring in a residence in lieu of using Nonmetallic sheathed cable?
What section of the NEC supports that question? :(
 
That sounds like a homework question. We don't directly answer homework questions, without seeing some effort on your part.
Try looking in the xxx.10 section of the code article that covers UF cable. In the Chapter 3 articles the xxx.10 sections are the uses permitted, and the xxx.12 sections are the uses not permitted.
 
dinorelyz said:
What section of the NEC supports that question? :(
Click to expand...

What section of the NEC prohibits what you propose?

You can use UF cable any place that NM could be used.

From a practical standpoint the installers will hate you for choosing it. It takes longer and more care to strip it.

It will cost more money than NM.
 
I have researched and thats the reason I'm so confuse. Code keeps sending me from 334.10 (B) to 334.10 (3), 334.108,250.119 table 250.122, 334.12,334.10 (1) (2) (3) and 334.15 (B) I'm not a lazy person and I wouldnt want to die electrocuted. Just a little confuse:happysad:




don_resqcapt19 said:
That sounds like a homework question. We don't directly answer homework questions, without seeing some effort on your part.
Try looking in the xxx.10 section of the code article that covers UF cable. In the Chapter 3 articles the xxx.10 sections are the uses permitted, and the xxx.12 sections are the uses not permitted.
Click to expand...
 
dinorelyz said:
I have researched and thats the reason I'm so confuse. Code keeps sending me from 334.10 (B) to 334.10 (3), 334.108,250.119 table 250.122, 334.12,334.10 (1) (2) (3) and 334.15 (B) I'm not a lazy person and I wouldnt want to die electrocuted. Just a little confuse:happysad:
Click to expand...
Does your cable happen to be marked UF/NMC?

If that's the case, disregard the NMC marking. You want to use it as Type UF. The only time you would consider using it as Type NMC is where it is advantageous to do so... such as when your conditions of installation would not permit Type UF, but will permit Type NMC. I can't think of any offhand (maybe someone else can?), but that is how multiple-type conductor/cable marking works.

PS: Welcome to the forum... :thumbsup:
 
Thank you for all the help

Thank you for all the help

Thank you very much for the help :thumbsup:


Smart $ said:
Does your cable happen to be marked UF/NMC?

If that's the case, disregard the NMC marking. You want to use it as Type UF. The only time you would consider using it as Type NMC is where it is advantageous to do so... such as when your conditions of installation would not permit Type UF, but will permit Type NMC. I can't think of any offhand (maybe someone else can?), but that is how multiple-type conductor/cable marking works.

PS: Welcome to the forum... :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
 
dinorelyz said:
I have researched and thats the reason I'm so confuse. Code keeps sending me from 334.10 (B) to 334.10 (3), 334.108,250.119 table 250.122, 334.12,334.10 (1) (2) (3) and 334.15 (B) I'm not a lazy person and I wouldnt want to die electrocuted. Just a little confuse:happysad:
Click to expand...
Why would you look in the NM article for a use permitted for UF?
 
iwire said:
What section of the NEC prohibits what you propose?

You can use UF cable any place that NM could be used.

From a practical standpoint the installers will hate you for choosing it. It takes longer and more care to strip it.

It will cost more money than NM.
Click to expand...

One might think that Chicago would allow it then.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The answer to the original question is not found in Article 334. Yes, 334 has an inpact on the installtion, but the permitted use is in Article 340.
Click to expand...
I know that...

...but are you really that at a loss in how dinorelyz got there?

I suspect she (?) is not [currently] adept in Code interpretation, especially when coupled with multi-type conductor and cable markings (which are not explained at all in Code).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top