Violation or Not

Status
Not open for further replies.
Little Bill

Little Bill

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee NEC:2017
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrician
Is this bundling?:D














I was in this attic this week and had to search for a faulted cable and found this. Apparently this part of the house was added and the service/panel was moved from the original location.

It looked to be 75'- 100' from the old location to the new.

If the way this was done is a violation, how could it have been done without bundling?
 
Little Bill said:
Is this bundling?:D


I was in this attic this week and had to search for a faulted cable and found this. Apparently this part of the house was added and the service/panel was moved from the original location.

It looked to be 75'- 100' from the old location to the new.

If the way this was done is a violation, how could it have been done without bundling?
Click to expand...

They could have stapled it to running boards..;)
 
Interpretations and opinions will vary.

IMO, it is not bundling.
 
The two cables entering the round box (with no cover) are the only two places I see with any cable securing whatsoever.


I agree it is not really "bundling" - to actually "bundle" those cables would require at least some method of securing them in a close contact fashion.

So the first issue to cite here is maybe the physical protection being adequate - probably not
second are the cables properly secured and supported - maybe supported, not secured
Then after they are secured and supported - if made up in groups or "bundles" with more then 3 current carrying conductors in a group or "bundle" then you have a situation where ampacity adjustments are going to be necessary.

The only place NEC uses the term "bundled" with regard to ampacity adjustment is in 310.15(B)(3)(a)(5)c.? (something doesn't seem right about that section and subsection numbers in the copy of the 2014 I have but that is what come up with - anyway-) which is talking specifically about AC or MC cable in that section. There is no general use rule in this area that uses the word "bundling".


<Add>
Can anyone with a 2014 NEC make sense of what is following table 310.15(B)(2)(a), it appears to be parts of 310.15(B)(3) with table 310.15(B)(2)(a) for some reason placed in the middle of the (B)(3) context - at least in my copy, something just don't seem right about how that was laid out in the book.
 
Last edited:
kwired said:
The two cables entering the round box (with no cover) are the only two places I see with any cable securing whatsoever.


I agree it is not really "bundling" - to actually "bundle" those cables would require at least some method of securing them in a close contact fashion.

So the first issue to cite here is maybe the physical protection being adequate - probably not
second are the cables properly secured and supported - maybe supported, not secured
Then after they are secured and supported - if made up in groups or "bundles" with more then 3 current carrying conductors in a group or "bundle" then you have a situation where ampacity adjustments are going to be necessary.

The only place NEC uses the term "bundled" with regard to ampacity adjustment is in 310.15(B)(3)(a)(5)c.? (something doesn't seem right about that section and subsection numbers in the copy of the 2014 I have but that is what come up with - anyway-) which is talking specifically about AC or MC cable in that section. There is no general use rule in this area that uses the word "bundling".


<Add>
Can anyone with a 2014 NEC make sense of what is following table 310.15(B)(2)(a), it appears to be parts of 310.15(B)(3) with table 310.15(B)(2)(a) for some reason placed in the middle of the (B)(3) context - at least in my copy, something just don't seem right about how that was laid out in the book.
Click to expand...

Went to look at same thing in 2011, and some of it is still laid out in a strange fashion but is not the same as it is in my 2014 either.

why are these tables somewhat randomly placed in the text? as in not in numerical order as the surrounding text articles. makes it a little hard to determine just what section and headings some of the text actually belongs to.
 
Little Bill said:
Is this bundling?:D
I was in this attic this week and had to search for a faulted cable and found this. Apparently this part of the house was added and the service/panel was moved from the original location.

It looked to be 75'- 100' from the old location to the new.

If the way this was done is a violation, how could it have been done without bundling?
Click to expand...


I'm not really sure what you would call this. It's not bundling but I can't imagine that it ever passed inspection.

Makes you wonder how they got away with this. If they built a new section onto the house and moved the service/panel that would normally require a permit for a re-connect.
 
IMO it is not bundling unless you can find a spot where the wires run for more than 24" and there is no spacing. I doubt that is the case esp for it to be the same wires
 
I would consider the the wires as 'bundled.' Bundling isn't so much about holding them together; rather, it's about the failure to maintain spacing.

The install is actually typical of what I find, with one minor difference. Most homes do have the cables actually held together, usually by a scrap piece of NM wound around them in a spiral and staples to the framing. I simply thought the OP had removed the 'strap' so he could sort through the cables.

How to prevent a 'bundle' from happening? Well, you can stack the cables using those plastic trees. Or, you could actually make the runs nice and parallel, and staple them individually to the framing. Running boards? Only required near the hatch.
 
ActionDave said:
I thought we it was already decided it was not a bundle, or at least not bundling. :p

Good thing all that Romex was nice and loose huh?
Click to expand...

Yep, pulling the cable out wasn't as bad as I thought once I got it started. I did acquire the aid of the lady's grandson to identify the cable where it went through a wall. I just ask him to see which one moved when I pulled on it.

He was more than happy to help since his "Granny" was working him to death cleaning!:lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top