Flex not secured??

[brother]

Looking at these new residential homes where they wired the water heaters with the flex conduit with romex inside. Only issue is that the flex is just shoved into the wall and not secured to a box or strapped down.

They actually tried to convince us that it was code to only have to have the flex cover the wire from the wall without having the flex secured to anything (ie connected to a box).

I dont have my book in front of me, can someone give the code article for this?

 

[GoldDigger]

I would say that if the flex is only used as a sleeve the code support requirements for flex are not relevant.
*However* the NM inside the sleeve still needs to be supported in conformance with code requirements for NM. If the only way to do that is to support the flex, there you are.

 

[iwire]

I would say that if the flex is only used as a sleeve the code support requirements for flex are not relevant.

Bingo

*However* the NM inside the sleeve still needs to be supported in conformance with code requirements for NM. If the only way to do that is to support the flex, there you are.

An AHJ call for sure, same with support requirements for the cable to a DW or GD.

Without getting extravagant it is not possible to secure the cable going to a GD.

I would not worry about it.

 

[ActionDave]

I agree with others. Another option is to just get rid of the flex.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I agree with others. Another option is to just get rid of the flex.

and there starts another thread on whether the NMC can be run exposed.

 

[Fulthrotl]

and there starts another thread on whether the NMC can be run exposed.

can you put NM inside a raceway? i was under the impression
you could not, but that was from olden times....

 

[cowboyjwc]

can you put NM inside a raceway? i was under the impression
you could not, but that was from olden times....

You can and as soon as I can remember how you calculate I'll let you know.

 

[JFletcher]

can you put NM inside a raceway? i was under the impression
you could not, but that was from olden times....

You can as long as that raceway isnt a wet location.

 

[John120/240]

can you put NM inside a raceway? i was under the impression
you could not, but that was from olden times....

You can as long as that raceway isnt a wet location.

Romex in a EMT sleeve is done all the time in unfinished basements for sump pumps, furnaces, freezers, GFCI receptacles. For electric water heaters Yes Romex in Carflex/Sealtight is an accepted practice around here. Never been an issue with AHJ.

 

[big john]

I think if we actually believe physical damage is a real risk, then an unsecured flex sleeve is a pretty poor solution.

And we don't believe that, then the unsecured flex sleeve serves very little purpose.

 

[ActionDave]

I think if we actually believe physical damage is a real risk, then an unsecured flex sleeve is a pretty poor solution.

And we don't believe that, then the unsecured flex sleeve serves very little purpose.

Yep. :thumbsup:

 

[kwired]

I think if we actually believe physical damage is a real risk, then an unsecured flex sleeve is a pretty poor solution.

And we don't believe that, then the unsecured flex sleeve serves very little purpose.

The thin skinned NM cable that is out there today doesn't hurt to have a little extra protection compared to what used to be run say 30 years ago.

NMLT flex can take a lot of abuse compared to NM cable.

 

[Smart $]

To specifically answer the OP, in part, 300.18(A)

Exception: Short sections of raceways used to contain
conductors or cable assemblies for protection from physical
damage shall not be required to be installed complete
between outlet, junction, or splicing points.

I do not know of any section which requires a "protection sleeve" to be secured and/or supported.

 

[Smart $]

...
I do not know of any section which requires a "protection sleeve" to be secured and/or supported.

And I'll add to that 334.30 says "Sections of cable protected from physical damage by raceway shall not be required to be secured within the raceway."

 

[big john]

To specifically answer the OP, in part, 300.18(A)

I do not know of any section which requires a "protection sleeve" to be secured and/or supported.

310.11 requires raceway to be secured. If the code recognizes sleeves can be "short sections of raceway" seems to me the securing requirements would still apply.

I don't think it is the intent of the code that a wiring method will support it's own protective sleeve.

 

[kwired]

310.11 requires raceway to be secured. If the code recognizes sleeves can be "short sections of raceway" seems to me the securing requirements would still apply.

I don't think it is the intent of the code that a wiring method will support it's own protective sleeve.

But short sections used as protective sleeves are also not raceway systems and do not have to comply with applicable chapter 3 section for that raceway. To be a raceway system it must be complete from box, cabinet, etc. to box, cabinet, etc. including proper terminations of the raceway.

 

[big john]

But short sections used as protective sleeves are also not raceway systems and do not have to comply with applicable chapter 3 section for that raceway....

I agree, they aren't a complete raceway, but it seems like the code has exceptions to many sections where incomplete raceways would be in conflict: Grounding, mechanical continuity, electrical continuity.

I can't help but notice there is no exception when discussing securing and supporting.

 

[Smart $]

...
I can't help but notice there is no exception when discussing securing and supporting.

But these "protection sleeves" are not raceways and there would first have to be a section which requires a "protection sleeve" be secured and/or supported before the section could be excepted.

What it amounts to is the Code lacks technical correlation on the matter. It has either been proposed and rejected by the CMP(s) or the Technical Correlation Committee continuously drops the ball. Don't know which or if at all...

 

[big john]

But these "protection sleeves" are not raceways...

What leads you to that conclusion?

I understand a sleeve doesn't have to be a raceway and they often aren't. But if you install lengths of article 300 wiring methods that the code specifically recognizes as "short sections of raceway" that seems pretty unambiguous.

I understand there may be a gap between the writing and the intent, but I still maintain it's not the intent that the wiring method should support the sleeve. In my opinion doing that may even be worse than no sleeve at all.

 

[Smart $]

What leads you to that conclusion?

I understand a sleeve doesn't have to be a raceway and they often aren't. But if you install lengths of article 300 wiring methods that the code specifically recognizes as "short sections of raceway" that seems pretty unambiguous.

I understand there may be a gap between the writing and the intent, but I still maintain it's not the intent that the wiring method should support the sleeve. In my opinion doing that may even be worse than no sleeve at all.

A raceway used as a protection sleeve is still a raceway by definition, but when used as such it is not used as a Code-compliant wiring method, and therefore not subject to the securing and supporting requirements of the wiring method. Simple logic.

I agree it is likely not the intent for the protection means to be supported by the cable... but when it comes to Code, intent means nothing when the words in print do not support it.