# Conduit fill for protection



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

I see 358.22 says to follow the rules in chapter 9 table one for CABLE fill for emt. It says that is for complete runs. Where am I missing the article for figuring CABLE fill in a sleeve for protection only? Also how do you figure the diameter of a CABLE not a conductor? Damn test questions have me brain dead.:blink:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

For a cable you measure it or get the specs from the manufacturer.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> I see 358.22 says to follow the rules in chapter 9 table one for CABLE fill for emt. It says that is for complete runs. Where am I missing the article for figuring CABLE fill in a sleeve for protection only? Also how do you figure the diameter of a CABLE not a conductor? Damn test questions have me brain dead.:blink:


You need to measure the cable or call the manufacturer of the wire for dimensions.

Sorry Bob you beat me to it.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> I see 358.22 says to follow the rules in chapter 9 table one for CABLE fill for emt. It says that is for complete runs. Where am I missing the article for figuring CABLE fill in a sleeve for protection only? Also how do you figure the diameter of a CABLE not a conductor?


I use this magical device called a caliper to measure the cable diameter then I go from there.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Has anyone said to measure it?:jester:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Also check out Note #9 to the Table.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

I didn't think the diameters were in the NEC.


Now what is the conduit fill you follow? 60% like a nipple(just a guess)?:blink:


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> Has anyone said to measure it?:jester:


It appears these three nut jobs did right after one another. :lol:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Also check out Note #9 to the Table.




Does that say if you have a 14-4 romex you can use the #14 conductor like thnn for fill calculations?:blink:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> Has anyone said to measure it?:jester:


 Smart ass...


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> Has anyone said to measure it?:jester:


What would be the best way to do that there measuring?


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Now what is the conduit fill you follow? 60% like a nipple


Fail!


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Does that say if you have a 14-4 romex you can use the #14 conductor like thnn for fill calculations?:blink:


No it means the cable is one conductor size by the manufacturer. If you have 4 conductors then derating is in effect. I think that's what it means.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> What would be the best way to do that there measuring?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Jw read all the notes


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> What would be the best way to do that there measuring?


The best way would be calipers, but I usually just use a tape measure and some calibrated eyeballing.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Bob Badger said:


> Fail!




Not the first time...won't be the last.
I know we sleeve two uf cables in 3/4 and have never been called on it. Now I wanna know how to size it correctly.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> The best way would be calipers, but I usually just use a tape measure and some calibrated eyeballing.



How often do you have your eyeballs calibrated? :jester:


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> Fail!


It's jw, what where you expecting, this is the person that can't put a DVD back into a redbox properly. 

:laughing:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Not the first time...won't be the last.
> I know we sleeve two uf cables in 3/4 and have never been called on it. Now I wanna know how to size it correctly.


I have always used my gut and have done like you but I most inspectors don't check it. 

BTW. Marc used to have the dimension for nm cable that were pretty close. Of course, each manufacturers is different.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Ok where do I find conduit fill for emt sleeve.....:notworthy:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

480sparky said:


> How often do you have your eyeballs calibrated? :jester:


It seems it needs to be much more frequent after about 42. 

I have been taking pictures of small things and blowing them up so I can see them. :jester:


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Ok where do I find conduit fill for emt sleeve


I do the same as Dennis



Dennis Alwon said:


> I have always used my gut...


I know there is a scientific, mathematical way but that's work...


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> No it means the cable is one conductor size by the manufacturer. If you have 4 conductors then derating is in effect. I think that's what it means.



Ok whats the fill on the sleeve? Where do I find it?:notworthy:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Ok whats the fill on the sleeve? Where do I find it?:notworthy:


IMO if this is a sleeve then there is no fill requirement.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Ok whats the fill on the sleeve?


Usally one arm.



> Where do I find it?:notworthy:


Out past your shoulder.












I don't think there are any fill requirements for sleeves.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> IMO if this is a sleeve then there is no fill requirement.




So I couldn't find it because it is not in the code book?:no:
I'm just trying to wrap my brain around this. Say you had 4 uf crammed into one conduit. It was a tight fit. What article could an inspector tag you for?


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> Say you had 4 uf crammed into one conduit. It was a tight fit. What article could an inspector tag you for?


All I can think of is if the length is right, perhaps bundling.


----------



## drsparky (Nov 13, 2008)

Cram all that will fit in a sleeve.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> Ok whats the fill on the sleeve? Where do I find it?:notworthy:





Dennis Alwon said:


> IMO if this is a sleeve then there is no fill requirement.





drsparky said:


> Cram all that will fit in a sleeve.


I agree. Table 9, note 2. If it's sleeving for protection, the fill tables do not apply. An incomplete conduit system... you can compliantly cram in as many as will fit. That's not to say that if they're bundled for a sufficient length that derating won't apply, because it obviously would. It's just that there is no max fill for "sleeving for protection".


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

What made me think of this was a question on this study guide I'm using to prep for my state test. I looked in all the places I knew to and could not find it. Then in ch 9 table one it said not to be used to calculate fill for" protection only " but did NOT say what rules to follow for protection only. Now I know why...Thanks!


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> What made me think of this was a question on this study guide I'm using to prep for my state test. I looked in all the places I knew to and could not find it. Then in ch 9 table one it said not to be used to calculate fill for" protection only " but did NOT say what rules to follow for protection only. Now I know why...Thanks!


Yeah, look at note 2 in the small print at the bottom of that table and that pretty much clears it up.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> Yeah, look at note 2 in the small print at the bottom of that table and that pretty much clears it up.


That's why I told JW to read all the notes. I was hoping he would catch it.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

Dennis Alwon said:


> That's why I told JW to read all the notes. I was hoping he would catch it.


Yeah, but think of your audience. Subtle, to JW, is a flying brick.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

MDShunk said:


> Yeah, but think of your audience. Subtle, to JW, is a flying brick.


:laughing: :laughing:

I think it's really more like the whole pallet of bricks though...


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

jwjrw said:


> IAlso how do you figure the diameter of a CABLE not a conductor?





> Note (9) A multiconductor cable or flexible cord of two or more
> conductors shall be treated as a single conductor for
> calculating percentage conduit fill area. For cables that
> have elliptical cross sections, the cross-sectional area
> ...


Measure flat cables the largest way and call it a circle.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

MDShunk said:


> Yeah, look at note 2 in the small print at the bottom of that table and that pretty much clears it up.



That's what confused me I think.
It tells you "not for protection" but leaves out what article is for that protection. Now I know there is not one.


----------



## MDShunk (Jan 7, 2007)

For anyone who cares, here's the numbers I use for the cross sectional area of common Romex cables. Some time was spent a few years ago extrapolating this information, because it doesn't seem to exist on the net:
14-2 NMB .1018
12-2 NMB .1320
10-2 NMB .1917
8-2 NMB .2942
6-2 NMB .3664
14-3 NMB .0740
12-3 NMB .0946
10-3 NMB .1399
8-3 NMB .2507
6-3 NMB .3318
14-2 UF .1405
12-2 UF .1684
10-2 UF .2107
8-2 UF .3610
6-2 UF .4657
14-3 UF .2651
12-3 UF .3078
10-3 UF .4151
8-3 UF .8808
6-3 UF 1.1747


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> That's why I told JW to read all the notes. I was hoping he would catch it.



I had already found that but when it said for complete runs only that made me think it was in another article I could not find.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

MDShunk said:


> Yeah, but think of your audience. Subtle, to JW, is a flying brick.




Soooo true.......


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Here is an interesting contradiction. Table 9 Note #2 states



> (2) Table 1 applies only to complete conduit or tubing systems and is not intended to apply to sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring from physical damage.


Now go to 312.5(C)

(C) Cables. Where cable is used, each cable shall be secured to the cabinet, cutout box, or meter socket enclosure.
Exception: Cables with entirely nonmetallic sheaths shall be permitted to enter the top of a surface-mounted enclosure through one or more nonflexible raceways not less than 450 mm (18 in.) and not more than 3.0 m (10 ft) in length, provided all of the following conditions are met: 

*(G)Where installed as conduit or tubing, the allowable cable fill does not exceed that permitted for complete conduit or tubing systems by Table 1 of Chapter 9 of this Code and all applicable notes thereto.
FPN: See Table 1 in Chapter 9, including Note 9, for allowable cable fill in circular raceways. See 310.15(B)(2)(a) for required ampacity reductions for multiple cables installed in a common raceway.*

This seems to contradict Note 2.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Now go to 312.5(C)


I think that's only applicable to sleeves coming out of an enclosure that meet the exceptions listed, at least IMO.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Jlarson said:


> I think that's only applicable to sleeves coming out of an enclosure that meet the exceptions listed, at least IMO.


Yes but why there and not anywhere else. Plus what about the contradiction between Note #2 and this section.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Yes but why there and not anywhere else. Plus what about the contradiction between Note #2 and this section.



That is why I posted the thread. I saw where it applied to complete conduit runs but not protection. The rest is not really worded clearly to me.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Yes but why there and not anywhere else. Plus what about the contradiction between Note #2 and this section.


 I don't know. Maybe the CMP was smoking something that day. 

I am going to read it again maybe there is something else to it all.


----------

