# horse barns



## njspark83 (May 11, 2009)

Hey guys I am wiring a horse barn which is about 40x40 I am installing vapor proof light fixtures as well as gfis? Also, what wiring method do u best suggest for this sitiuation? Would this be considered a class 1 division 1? thanks.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Lots of rules for barns. Any pavement? Any equipment? Take a look at Art 547. I wold use emt or UF even. I did one recently in UF because the owner wanted cheap.


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

Vapor proof? I'm not a hazardous expert but wouldn't dust be a much bigger hazard than horse gas?


----------



## tates1882 (Sep 3, 2010)

njspark83 said:


> Hey guys I am wiring a horse barn which is about 40x40 I am installing vapor proof light fixtures as well as gfis? Also, what wiring method do u best suggest for this sitiuation? Would this be considered a class 1 division 1? thanks.


Pipe is a great choice, horses are nosey nosey nosey. Also avoid lights over the feed storage or mangers the insects will cluster around the fixture, die, fall in the food and make the horses sick. As long as there are not milling any feed it should be a unclassifed area. Double check that all metal surfaces are grounded, nothing like killing a $20,000 horse.


----------



## ceb58 (Feb 14, 2009)

tates1882 said:


> Pipe is a great choice, horses are nosey nosey nosey. Also avoid lights over the feed storage or mangers the insects will cluster around the fixture, die, fall in the food and make the horses sick. As long as there are not milling any feed it should be a unclassifed area. Double check that all metal surfaces are grounded, nothing like killing a $20,000 horse.


Agreed, But if you need to bring cost down you can wire in UF and sleeve it with pipe to a point where the horse cannot reach it to chew on. Switches and recpts. will need plates with covers to help keep out dust. The vapor proof lights are the way to go. I use the 4ft flor. vapor proofs.
While you are there try and up sell fly killers and celing fans (outdoor rated)


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Although most inspectors won't catch it, uf ina horse barn exposed is illegal.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

I use EMT in horse barns. Horses chew on absolutely everything, and they'll destroy PVC and UF. I've seen the aftermath. If there's a horse washing area, wire that area with aluminium IMC or RMC.

For the fixtures, I use a non-metallic "haymow light". The one I use is from Epco, and costs about 15 bucks.


----------



## ceb58 (Feb 14, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Although most inspectors won't catch it, uf ina horse barn exposed is illegal.


Code section please


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

ceb58 said:


> Code section please


15 minute flash rating thing. 

However, if other states are anything like mine, anything you do in an agricultural building is completely exempt from any building code. That might jsut be a weird PA thing.


----------



## ceb58 (Feb 14, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> 15 minute flash rating thing.
> 
> However, if other states are anything like mine, anything you do in an agricultural building is completely exempt from any building code. That might jsut be a weird PA thing.


We are not exempt from building code or NEC in agricultural buildings but I have never been called on using UF. As long as it was protected from damage. But I do protect the drops for switches and recpt up to 10ft AFF


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

ceb58 said:


> We are not exempt from building code or NEC in agricultural buildings but I have never been called on using UF. As long as it was protected from damage. But I do protect the drops for switches and recpt up to 10ft AFF


 

Protecting from damage AFF has nothing to do with it. 

340.10 (4) refers us to 334.10 (3), which makes exposed UF in anything other than a dwelling unit illegal.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Although most inspectors won't catch it, uf ina horse barn exposed is illegal.


Although ost electricians don't know it,uf in a barn exposed is LEGAL.
We had this discussion.....it is not illegal remember the thread about the barn I did?


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Protecting from damage AFF has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 340.10 (4) refers us to 334.10 (3), which makes exposed UF in anything other than a dwelling unit illegal.


:no::no:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

ARTICLE 547
Agricultural Buildings

547.5 Wiring Methods.
(A) Wiring Systems. Types UF, NMC, copper SE cables,
jacketed Type MC cable, rigid nonmetallic conduit, liquidtight
flexible nonmetallic conduit, or other cables or raceways suitable
for the location, with approved termination fittings, shall be the wiring methods employed. The wiring methods of Article
502, Part II, shall be permitted for areas described in
547.1(A).


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> ARTICLE 547
> Agricultural Buildings
> 
> 547.5 Wiring Methods.
> ...


...................................see below


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Yes, it's a permitted wiring method in the barn. I'll give you that. So that means you are allowed to install uf in the barn in accordance with article 340.

Just because it's a permitted wiring method in 547 doesn't absolve you from the requirements of 340. 
340.10 (4) directly states that uf ran in the manner that you are proposing SHALL COMPLY with part II and III of article 334.


Although most inspectors won't ding you for it, you're still proposing an illegal installation.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Yes, it's a permitted wiring method in the barn. I'll give you that. So that means you are allowed to install uf in the barn in accordance with article 340.
> 
> Just because it's a permitted wiring method in 547 doesn't absolve you from the requirements of 340.
> 340.10 (4) directly states that uf ran in the manner that you are proposing SHALL COMPLY with part II and III of article 334.
> ...




No where in art 547 does it tell you to follow 340.10. Most articles do tell you to follow the rules in 340 if romex is used but 547 does not say that. :no:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> No where in art 547 does it tell you to follow 340.10. Most articles do tell you to follow the rules in 340 if romex is used but 547 does not say that. :no:


 
the code book would be 3' thick if it referenced every application that cross referenced. 
You proved you're allowed to run uf in a barn. Now prove that doing so absloves you from the requirements of 340. 

I'm guessing you won't be able to prove that:blink:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> the code book would be 3' thick if it referenced every application that cross referenced.
> You proved you're allowed to run uf in a barn. Now prove that doing so absloves you from the requirements of 340.
> 
> I'm guessing you won't be able to prove that:blink:




Most articles say you must follow the rules in art 340 or 334. You can't prove I have to follow 334. No where in this article does it say to do so. It does say that in other articles. I will try to find some examples after I finish my morning duties. Then there is this also....

334.15 Exposed Work. *In exposed work,* except as provided
in 300.11(A), *cable shall be installed as specified in
334.15(A) through (C).*


and this.....




(B) Mounting. All cables shall be secured within 200 mm
(8 in.) of each cabinet, box, or fitting.* Nonmetallic boxes,
fittings, conduit, and cables shall be permitted to be mounted
directly to any building surface* covered by this article without
maintaining the 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) airspace in accordance with
300.6(D).




And if you use it as a substitute for NM (maybe you were out of nm and used uf?)then this would apply if it was not an AG building....


(4) Installed as nonmetallic-sheathed cable. Where so installed,
the installation and conductor requirements
shall comply with Parts II and III of Article 334 and
shall be of the multiconductor type.



If you were required to follow the rules in 334 it would tell you so. Since it does not I don't have to prove it is accepted you have to prove I have to follow the rules in 334. I'm guessing you can't.:blink:


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Most articles say you must follow the rules in art 340 or 334. You can't prove I have to follow 334. No where in this article does it say to do so. It does say that in other articles. I will try to find some examples after I finish my morning duties. Then there is this also....
> 
> 334.15 Exposed Work. *In exposed work,* except as provided
> in 300.11(A), *cable shall be installed as specified in*
> ...


 
This is the silliest and weakest argument EVER!.

By your theory, we wouldn't have to staple according to 334.30 since it didn't specifically list it, ampacity wouldn't matter, you could run any size wire for any size circuit, since 334.80 wasn't specifically listed, we would be able to use it as SE CABLE, since 334.12 wouldn't apply either, while we're at it we can embedd it into concrete, since it wasn't specifically listed, we wouldn't concern ouselves with a sch.80 sleeve for physical protection since 334.15 (B) would no longer apply since it wasn't specially listed.

You must be out of your mind to think that UF, ran ANYWHERE,,,,,no matter where that may be,,,would not be subject to the requirement of article 340


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> This is the silliest and weakest argument EVER!.
> 
> By your theory, we wouldn't have to staple according to 334.30 since it didn't specifically list it, ampacity wouldn't matter, you could run any size wire for any size circuit, since 334.80 wasn't specifically listed, we would be able to use it as SE CABLE, since 334.12 wouldn't apply either, while we're at it we can embedd it into concrete, since it wasn't specifically listed, we wouldn't concern ouselves with a sch.80 sleeve for physical protection since 334.15 (B) would no longer apply since it wasn't specially listed.
> 
> You must be out of your mind to think that UF, ran ANYWHERE,,,,,no matter where that may be,,,would not be subject to the requirement of article 340



Then why have Art 334.15 EXPOSED? 

334.15 Exposed Work. In exposed work, except as provided
in 300.11(A), cable shall be installed as specified in
334.15(A) through (C).
(A) To Follow Surface. Cable shall closely follow the surface
of the building finish or of running boards.
(B) Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be
protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid
metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic
tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, Type RTRC marked
with the suffix -XW, or other approved means. Where passing
through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid
metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic
tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, Type RTRC marked
with the suffix -XW, or other approved means extending at
least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor.
Type NMC cable installed in shallow chases or grooves
in masonry, concrete, or adobe shall be protected in accordance
with the requirements in 300.4(F) and covered with
plaster, adobe, or similar finish.


And art 334 tell you to secure the cable here....

334.30 Securing and Supporting. Nonmetallic-sheathed
cable shall be supported and secured by staples, cable ties,
straps, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so
as not to damage the cable, at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m
(41⁄2 ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.) of every outlet box,
junction box, cabinet, or fitting. Flat cables shall not be
stapled on edge.


This is straight from ART 547...

(B) Mounting. All cables shall be secured within 200 mm
(8 in.) of each cabinet, box, or fitting. *Nonmetallic boxes,
fittings, conduit, and cables shall be permitted to be mounted
directly to any building surface* *covered by this article* without
maintaining the 6 mm (1⁄4 in.) airspace in accordance with
300.6(D).


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Then why have Art 334.15 EXPOSED?
> 
> 334.15 Exposed Work. In exposed work, except as provided
> in 300.11(A), cable shall be installed as specified in
> ...


 

Are you doing this deliberately or are you really this hardheaded?. You've quoted two codes articles and taken them both out of context.


334.15 can be exposed, I'll give you that, but not in anything other than a dwelling unit. 

The article you quoted about mounting boxes, simply eliminates the 1/4 gap requirement, nothing more. You're reading into it to deep, or refusing to accept what you're reading.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Are you doing this deliberately or are you really this hardheaded?. You've quoted two codes articles and taken them both out of context.
> 
> 
> 334.15 can be exposed, I'll give you that, but not in anything other than a dwelling unit.
> ...







340.12 Uses Not Permitted. Type UF cable shall not be
used as follows:
(1) As service-entrance cable
(2) In commercial garages
(3) In theaters and similar locations
(4) In motion picture studios
(5) In storage battery rooms
(6) In hoistways or on elevators or escalators
(7) In hazardous (classified) locations, except as specifically
permitted by other articles in this Code
(8) Embedded in poured cement, concrete, or aggregate,
except where embedded in plaster as nonheating leads
where permitted in 424.43
(9) Where exposed to direct rays of the sun, unless identified
as sunlight resistant
(10) Where subject to physical damage
(11) As overhead cable, except where installed as messengersupported
wiring in accordance with Part II of Article
396


----------



## BuzzKill (Oct 27, 2008)

I think 547 stands on it's own merits; if need be, it would refer you to 334/340 for specifics, like allot of other code sections do with other articles.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

BuzzKill said:


> I think 547 stands on it's own merits; if need be, it would refer you to 334/340 for specifics, like allot of other code sections do with other articles.


Actually Chapter 5 does not stand on it's own, Chapter 5 supplements or modifies the general rules found in Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Article 547 supplements and modifies the general requirements found in Chapters 1 thorugh 4.

The general rules found in 340 still apply to agricultural buildings unless specifically modified by Article 547.

340.10(4) states when using UF as NM you are required to follow Parts II & III of Article 334.

Now if the horse barn is accessory to a dwelling unit I feel that the 2011 NEC change to 334.10(1) would permit exposed UF cable without being installed concealed within a 15 minute rated consutruction.

Chris


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

raider1 said:


> Now if the horse barn is accessory to a dwelling unit I feel that the 2011 NEC change to 334.10(1) would permit exposed UF cable without being installed concealed within a 15 minute rated consutruction.
> 
> Chris


I don't even go that far. Even if it's a detached garage, I don't feel you can run exposed NM and UF, and that's clearly 'accessory to a dwelling unit'.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> I don't even go that far. Even if it's a detached garage, I don't feel you can run exposed NM and UF, and that's clearly 'accessory to a dwelling unit'.


Do you feel it is exposed to physical damage?

Chris


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

raider1 said:


> Do you feel it is exposed to physical damage?
> 
> Chris


I don't have to have an opinion. If it's not a dwelling unit, I don't see how you can compliantly run NM and UF exposed under the present language.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> I don't have to have an opinion. If it's not a dwelling unit, I don't see how you can compliantly run NM and UF exposed under the present language.


Under the 2008 language I would agree.

The 2011 has changed 334.10(1) to include detached garages and storage buildings.

It could be argued that a horse barn accessory to a single family building would be a detached storage building.



> *
> 334.10 Uses Permitted.​*​​​​Type NM, Type NMC, and Type
> NMS cables shall be permitted to be used in the following:
> (1) One- and two-family dwellings and their attached or​
> detached garages, and their storage buildings.




I underlined the new language in the 2011 NEC.

Chris


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Have no fear 2011 is here.




> 334.10 Uses Permitted. Type NM, Type NMC, and Type
> NMS cables shall be permitted to be used in the following:
> (1) One- and two-family dwellings and their attached or
> detached garages, and their storage buildings.


I guess a horse barn would be another story...


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I guess a horse barn would be another story...


Is it?

Playing Devil's advocate here but isn't a horse barn that is accessory to a dwelling unit a storage building for storing horses?

Chris


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

raider1 said:


> Is it?
> 
> Playing Devil's advocate here but isn't a horse barn that is accessory to a dwelling unit a storage building for storing horses?
> 
> Chris


Even if you were Amish or Quaker, you still wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The building they call the "garage" is where they park buggies and wagons. The horse goes in the barn or stable.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

raider1 said:


> Actually Chapter 5 does not stand on it's own, Chapter 5 supplements or modifies the general rules found in Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4.
> 
> Article 547 supplements and modifies the general requirements found in Chapters 1 thorugh 4.
> 
> ...


Then why does 340 not say follow the the rules for romex like it does in other articles?


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

I got this pass sticker on my horse barn wired with uf so I guess that is all that really matters....:thumbsup:

IMO and my county's uf is legal because it does not say you must follow 334 like it does in other articles. Right or wrong it passed and the customer was happy.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> Then why does 340 not say follow the the rules for romex like it does in other articles?


It does, 340.10(4) states that you must follow the rules in Parts II & III of Article 334 when installing UF cable as NM.

Chris


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

MDShunk said:


> Even if you were Amish or Quaker, you still wouldn't have a leg to stand on. The building they call the "garage" is where they park buggies and wagons. The horse goes in the barn or stable.


Again 334.10(1) states garages and storage buildings, I am just pointing out that it may be construded to mean buildings accessory to a dwelling unit that are used to store horses.

Chris


----------



## ceb58 (Feb 14, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> I got this pass sticker on my horse barn wired with uf so I guess that is all that really matters....:thumbsup:
> 
> IMO and my county's uf is legal because it does not say you must follow 334 like it does in other articles. Right or wrong it passed and the customer was happy.


Must be something to it. Every chicken house I have seen is wired with exposed NM


----------



## Old man (Mar 24, 2010)

jwjrw said:


> I got this pass sticker on my horse barn wired with uf so I guess that is all that really matters....:thumbsup:
> 
> IMO and my county's uf is legal because it does not say you must follow 334 like it does in other articles. Right or wrong it passed and the customer was happy.


That sticker is as good as a touchdown in the superbowl. Its what counts.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Old man said:


> That sticker is as good as a touchdown in the superbowl. Its what counts.


 

Even the best inspectors make mistakes...........


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> Even the best inspectors make mistakes...........



Actually it was not a mistake. It was a ruling....they agree with my silly hardheaded argument.
:laughing::laughing:


----------



## bruce6670 (Apr 27, 2010)

If you did run UF in the barn, what would be the proper way to protect it from physical damage? Can you just sleeve it with 3/4" emt and some bang on bushings?


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

bruce6670 said:


> If you did run UF in the barn, what would be the proper way to protect it from physical damage? Can you just sleeve it with 3/4" emt and some bang on bushings?


That's what I did. My AHJ was ok with it.


----------



## HARRY304E (Sep 15, 2010)

jwjrw said:


> I got this pass sticker on my horse barn wired with uf so I guess that is all that really matters....:thumbsup:
> 
> IMO and my county's uf is legal because it does not say you must follow 334 like it does in other articles. Right or wrong it passed and the customer was happy.


 Looks like you saved a few bucks on that box cover:laughing::laughing:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

HARRY304E said:


> Looks like you saved a few bucks on that box cover:laughing::laughing:



Yea when I realized that uf was illegal I figured why bother with a cover?:blink:


That was the rough approval.


----------

