wire mold

Status
Not open for further replies.
Al my point being that it is not dot 10 of either article mentioned in this thread that prohibits the installation of wire molding in a damp or wet location.

380.10 uses Permitted. The use of a multioutlet assembly shall be permitted in dry locations.

384.10 Uses Permitted. The use of strut-type channel raceways shall be permitted in the following: (1) Where exposed. (2) In dry locations.

386.10 Uses Permitted. The use of surface metal raceways shall be permitted in the following: (1) In dry locations.

All three of the dot 10s are permissive rules and do not prohibit anything.
90.5(B) Permissive Rules. Permissive rules of this Code are those that identify actions that are allowed but not required, are normally used to describe options or alternative methods, and are characterized by the use of the terms shall be permitted or shall not be required.

It?s neither of these articles that prohibit the installation but the listing of the raceway that prohibits the installation which as you point out would be a violation of 110.3(B): Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling.

Take notice that each post I was addressing the dot 10 section and then asking the question ?where? is it prohibited.


Thank you for posting the insert.
 
Mike, IMO if the code allowed it in wet locations then why only mention dry. I understand your thinking but I don't see it. Do you honestly feel that wiremold is suitable in a wet location? No threaded entries, no gasket between top and bottom. I don't see it...
 
jwelectric said:
Take notice that each post I was addressing the dot 10 section and then asking the question ?where? is it prohibited.

Thank you for posting the insert.
Click to expand...
Complex document, this Code, eh?

Your question of "where?" seemed pretty all-encompassing to me, hence my answer.

Consider the requirement to GFCI protect exhaust fans placed within dwelling tub spaces. That's not in the Code, except for the 110.3(B) link to other documents.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Mike, IMO if the code allowed it in wet locations then why only mention dry. I understand your thinking but I don't see it.
Click to expand...
Section dot 10 does not prohibit the installation of either raceway in a wet location simply because dot 10 in the three articles is a permissive rule. You are correct the code does not allow the installation but it is 110.3(B) that prohibits the installation.


Dennis Alwon said:
Do you honestly feel that wiremold is suitable in a wet location? No threaded entries, no gasket between top and bottom. I don't see it...
Click to expand...
No I know that surface metal raceways are not to be installed in wet locations but it is the listing and 110.3(B) that prohibits the installation not 386.10.
All 386.10 does is gives permission to install the surface metal raceways in a dry location but does not prohibit the installation anywhere.

As Al pointed out there is no requirement in 210.8 to protect an exhaust fan in a shower stall with GFCI but the listing of the fan requires the protection hence it is controlled by 110.3(B)
 
Mike does have a point about permissive rules. Here's one that was changed in the 2011 NEC after a few attempts by Don:
2008 NEC
310.4 Conductors in Parallel.
(A) General. Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper conductors of size 1/0 AWG and larger, comprising each phase, polarity, neutral, or grounded circuit conductor shall be permitted to be connected in parallel (electrically joined at both ends).
Click to expand...
2011 NEC
(H) Conductors in Parallel.
(1) General. Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper
conductors, for each phase, polarity, neutral, or grounded circuit
shall be permitted to be connected in parallel (electrically
joined at both ends) only in sizes 1/0 AWG and larger where
installed in accordance with 310.10(H)(2) through (H)(6).
Click to expand...
The 2008 and early versions stated that it shall be permitted to connect #1/0 and larger conductors in parallel, that did not however prohibit smaller conductors from being connected in parallel. The 2011 has fixed the problem because the intent all along was to limit conductors smaller than #1/0 to be connected as such. Sounds like a proposal is in order. Sorry for going off on a tangent. :)

More reading:

6-16 Log #3647 NEC-P06 Final Action: Accept in Principle in Part
(310.4)
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere, Ottawa, IL
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
310.4 Conductors in Parallel.
(A) General. Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper conductors of size
1/0 1 AWG and larger smaller, comprising each phase, polarity, neutral, or
grounded circuit conductor shall be permitted to not be connected in parallel
(electrically joined at both ends). Where conductors of size 1/0 and larger are
installed in parallel they shall be installed in accordance with 310.4(B) through
310.4(E).
Substantiation: There is no reasonable reading of the words ?shall be
permitted? in the current code that leads the reader to conclude that these
words are intended to prohibit the paralleling of conductors smaller than 1/0.
The words ?shall be permitted? in no way act to prohibit other uses. The use of
?shall be permitted? in this section are not in compliance with the intended use
per 3.1.2 of the NEC Style Manual as they do not permit an optional or
alternate method.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle in Part
Revise text to read as follows:
310.4 Conductors in Parallel.
(A) General. Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper conductors of size
1/0 1 AWG and larger smaller, comprising each phase, polarity, neutral, or
grounded circuit conductor shall not be permitted to be connected in parallel
(electrically joined at both ends). Where conductors 1/0 AWG and larger are
installed in parallel they shall be installed in accordance with 310.4(B) through
310.4(E).
Panel Statement: The panel rejected the deletion of the text ?be permitted to?
and accepted the remainder of the proposal because it is necessary text. The
panel deleted ?of size? because it is redundant.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
_______________________________________________
Click to expand...
 
From Legrand FAQs

From Legrand FAQs

Does Wiremold offer any raceways suitable for outdoor use?
At this point Wiremold does not offer any raceways suitable for outdoor use. This applies for totally exposed installations as well as installations in partially enclosed locations, such as under canopies, porches, and other similar locations.

LEGRAND
 
iwire said:
Mike, you know I will not play these games with you.
Click to expand...


Ever hear the saying, ?all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy??

All the ?Uses Permitted? rules for cables and raceways are permissive rules. Are you suggesting that a proposal be made for each of them?

I don?t think such a proposal would be accepted as this would limit the manufactures from designing cables and raceways that could be installed in areas other those outlined in the Uses Permitted sections.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top