Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection  (Read 9062 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NFCphoneman

  • Moderator
  • Location: Jacksonville & Gainesville, FL
  • Posts: 694
    • Jacksonville Telephone Systems
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2016, 07:35:57 PM »
So... is an riser/outdoor rated CMX type cable comply?

http://ce.superioressex.com/uploadedFiles/Docs/PDF/Catalogs/Communications/CAT3-Station-Wire.pdf


That's Cat 3. The link also states: Do not use in conduit or direct burial which can flood. These cables are not designed for extended exposure to water.

Offline ttech

  • Moderator
  • Location: Paoli, PA
  • Posts: 263
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #16 on: February 03, 2016, 12:09:03 AM »
Yeah. I missed the red writing. 

Offline ttech

  • Moderator
  • Location: Paoli, PA
  • Posts: 263
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #17 on: February 03, 2016, 12:10:39 AM »
They do make it in Cat5e as well.

Offline hbiss

  • Administrator
  • Location: Westchester County, NY
  • Posts: 3310
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2016, 09:51:19 AM »
The "X" designation means it's for exterior use basically because it's UV resistant and may have a heavier jacket that's remains flexible under low temperatures. If you look at the tables in say Art 800 you will see that it's use is limited within structures. It's not waterproof.

An interesting thought just came to me about this. A conduit embedded in a slab under a building is not considered in the building. So it wouldn't be improper to use flooded direct burial cable as long as it transitioned to a listed cable within 50 feet or you continued the run in conduit. Problem is if this was a big bundle I wouldn't want all that flooded cable terminating on a patch panel in one place.

-Hal
I gotta get out of this business...

COMSYSTEC- Phone Systems | paging systems | background music systems | foreground music systems | retail music | restaurant music

Offline NFCphoneman

  • Moderator
  • Location: Jacksonville & Gainesville, FL
  • Posts: 694
    • Jacksonville Telephone Systems
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2016, 12:19:32 PM »
An interesting thought just came to me about this. A conduit embedded in a slab under a building is not considered in the building. So it wouldn't be improper to use flooded direct burial cable as long as it transitioned to a listed cable within 50 feet or you continued the run in conduit. Problem is if this was a big bundle I wouldn't want all that flooded cable terminating on a patch panel in one place.

-Hal

A couple of thoughts... It could be continued in conduit, but it would have to be IMC or RMC, couldn't be in PVC or EMT.

So, if you use flooded cable, and your conduit penetrates greater than 50 away from the telecommunications room, then you have to have a transition point.  But, wouldn't that TP have to be an enclosure of some sorts? (Not many of those made for this purpose.)  Then you also have the jack side to deal with. You would have to terminate the flooded cable directly to the jacks, or add a second transition point.  Well, you're not supposed to install more than one TP per run.

Keep in mind that this also depends on which article is covering this cable, 725 or 800. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 725 doesn't mention anything about an allowance for unlisted cable.  Does that mean you're not supposed to use it?

If the installation is falling under 800, then you could use the unlisted flooded cable as long as your don't exceed the 50' rule.  But, if it fell under 800 then you wouldn't have to used the flooded cable at all because 800 doesn't reference back to 300.5(B).

Offline hbiss

  • Administrator
  • Location: Westchester County, NY
  • Posts: 3310
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2016, 10:27:19 PM »
This is where the Code falls short. It isn't a problem with CL2 or CL3 wiring. The splice (transition) doesn't even have to be in a box, only accessible. If you can do something like this with data it isn't going to be easy.

Quote
Keep in mind that this also depends on which article is covering this cable, 725 or 800. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 725 doesn't mention anything about an allowance for unlisted cable.  Does that mean you're not supposed to use it?

It's in 800 because it and subsequent articles deal with cables entering from the outside. That doesn't happen with 725 except in certain instances, irrigation and LV landscape lighting come to mind. It's common practice to run the direct burial landscape lighting wire into a structure to connect with the transformer. That cable had no listing so that was a violation. Only recently has a listed cable been available, so in at least this case there is some evidence that demand generates a product.

-Hal
I gotta get out of this business...

COMSYSTEC- Phone Systems | paging systems | background music systems | foreground music systems | retail music | restaurant music

Offline EV607797

  • Moderator
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
  • Posts: 908
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2016, 12:49:57 AM »
Welcome to the world of confusion in the NEC.  We all need to buckle up for the ride.

It's all about what manufacturers have to sell for the year that make the rules there anymore,  It's a well-known fact that the board of the NEC is comprised largely of representatives of manufacturers.

GFI protection was the new highly-profitable requirement in the early 70s.  AIC interrupting ratings for breakers and fuses became the 'mandate du jour' in the 80s.  Four-wire dryer and range circuits in the early 90s.  In-use covers for outdoor receptacles in the late 90s.  AFCI protection, tamper-resistant receptacles, etc. since then.  The NEC  has become the National Enquirer of documents these days.  I swear that Arlington Industries owns the NEC.

Still, we have to follow it.

The problem is that the NEC doesn't address the specific situation that Larry's company encountered.  It shouldn't have.  This is not a matter of life safety and property protection, which is the intent of the NEC.  OK, maybe they could stretch the life safety part with the filled cable risks, but that really is a stretch.  Using filled cable that is terminated on anything but a BET rated for such is simply wrong.  Filled cable on a jack module?  Come on...

The truth is, petroleum-based filling compounds aren't the biggest risk.  It's more about the polyethylene jacket that creates the potential fire hazard.  PE also emits poisonous gas when burned.  The goo in filled cable is not always flammable, but it is still incredibly messy and should never be left exposed, since it oozes forever.

On the same token, it is clearly understood that the NEC is not intended to be a design standard.  This whole conversation brings to light the double standard that exists between the code making panel (manufacturers) and the enforcers (AHJ personnel).

Maybe some cable manufacturer needs to come along with an appropriate cable to fit these applications, patent it and then secure a seat on the NEC board so that it can be mandated.
Ed Vaughn

(910) 833-6000 (V)   (540) 623-7100 (C)
EMVaughn3@Outlook.com

Offline hbiss

  • Administrator
  • Location: Westchester County, NY
  • Posts: 3310
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2016, 11:03:52 AM »
Quote
The problem is that the NEC doesn't address the specific situation that Larry's company encountered.  It shouldn't have.  This is not a matter of life safety and property protection, which is the intent of the NEC.

Exactly. It's a design issue and if the cable deteriorates in a few years and has to be replaced it isn't hurting anybody except the customer's bank account.

The NEC has been overstepping its boundaries ever since they became controlled by manufacturers looking to sell their products. Maybe it's time for somebody else to create a competing code reference that is not influenced by outside interests. The NEC is only a text book after all and since it's the only game in town, states and municipalities have no choice but to use it to base their laws on.

-Hal
I gotta get out of this business...

COMSYSTEC- Phone Systems | paging systems | background music systems | foreground music systems | retail music | restaurant music

Offline tonyburkhart

  • Moderator
  • Location: Reynoldsburg Ohio USA
  • Posts: 1022
    • www.teamburkhart.com
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #23 on: February 09, 2016, 09:35:43 AM »
Great information from all, thanks guys! Love this board 
Thanks,
Tony Burkhart
Team Burkhart
www.teamburkhart.com

Offline NFCphoneman

  • Moderator
  • Location: Jacksonville & Gainesville, FL
  • Posts: 694
    • Jacksonville Telephone Systems
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #24 on: February 11, 2016, 03:05:47 PM »
Just an FYI, I did find a cable that can be used (at least according to the manufacturer) in wet locations and is rated CM.  It won't be of much help in a plenum, or between floors.

http://www.mohawk-cable.com/images/news/product-announcements/VersaLAN%205e%20NPB.pdf

Of course it costs 2-3 times as much as CMP.

Offline hbiss

  • Administrator
  • Location: Westchester County, NY
  • Posts: 3310
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #25 on: February 11, 2016, 04:13:12 PM »
Nice. It looks like you did some digging and it's good to know that this cable exists.

Quote
VersaLAN Indoor/Outdoor is listed by Underwriters Laboratories as National Electrical Code article 800 type CM rated communications cables. It meets Category 5e specifications of TIA/EIA-568-B.2 to support the operation of 1GBase-T over 100 meters. Transmission will employ full-duplex (transmitting and receiving simultaneously) over all four-pairs. The cable meets NEC article 800 Type CM.2005 NEC 800 communications cable listing requirements to be used in a building (NEC 800.113).

I see that they agree with me that data cabling is Art 800. :054:

-Hal
I gotta get out of this business...

COMSYSTEC- Phone Systems | paging systems | background music systems | foreground music systems | retail music | restaurant music

Offline tonyburkhart

  • Moderator
  • Location: Reynoldsburg Ohio USA
  • Posts: 1022
    • www.teamburkhart.com
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2016, 09:22:03 PM »
Just an FYI, I did find a cable that can be used (at least according to the manufacturer) in wet locations and is rated CM.  It won't be of much help in a plenum, or between floors.

http://www.mohawk-cable.com/images/news/product-announcements/VersaLAN%205e%20NPB.pdf

Of course it costs 2-3 times as much as CMP.


Awesome! I'll see how much we pay, and update. 2-3 x CMP is huge!
Thanks,
Tony Burkhart
Team Burkhart
www.teamburkhart.com

Offline tonyburkhart

  • Moderator
  • Location: Reynoldsburg Ohio USA
  • Posts: 1022
    • www.teamburkhart.com
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2016, 08:20:53 AM »
$335.45 per 1,000 foot box was our quote
Thanks,
Tony Burkhart
Team Burkhart
www.teamburkhart.com

Offline Rcaman

  • Member
  • Location: Pittsburgh, PA
  • Posts: 6
    • Americom, Inc.
Re: In Slab Conduit - Failed Inspection
« Reply #28 on: September 10, 2016, 04:10:42 PM »
Belden 7929A. This cable is MSHA rated and meets the NEC requirements.

Rcaman
Where The Art And Science of Communications Meet