Kids play here

[Scott A. Figert]

Inspection today found this 100 amp secondary service to a barn from the house. House was built in 1996 barn was buit a few years later. Would you want your kids playing here?

[bkelly1]

What type of wire is that, doesn't look like thhn. It could be wire trough wire, I forget the name, but I would not have a problem with it.

[bkelly1]

http://www.alphawire.com/PAGES/awis1.cfm

http://wesbellwireandcable.com/TrayCable.html

can't quite find what i am looking for.

[Speedy Petey]

That's not cable. Those are conductors, and SHOULD be in conduit in that installation.
Could very well be small URD, which IS direct burial rated but MUST be protected where exposed.

Good call Scott.

[Robert A. Jack]

Could also be SJ wire. None the less it should be protected.

[Speedy Petey]

Originally Posted by rjack1

Could also be SJ wire. None the less it should be protected.

If it were SJ there would be a litany of other violations associated with this installation.

[Paul W. Abernathy]

Sorry getting to this one late...I agree with the SPEEDSTER on this one...more than likely direct bury rated wires that came into the dwelling from the conduit and then they did not continue it to the enclosure for the barn. They indeed need to be protected.....

Also looks like they used Plumbing Pipe on what they DID protect...hmmmm

[Scott A. Figert]

Direct bury wires there, and yes DWV pipe used. I see that all the time here. Just could'nt believe they left it exposed under the deck like that. 3' of crawl space there. The couples grand kids would love that area. Out the back of the deck it sloped down to the river. Kids would have been there all the time. Here is what else was at the back of the deck.

[Speedy Petey]

This is classic DIY stuff.
They know enough to make it work, but not enough to make it safe.

[bkelly1]

Originally Posted by Speedy Petey

That's not cable. Those are conductors, and SHOULD be in conduit in that installation.
Could very well be small URD, which IS direct burial rated but MUST be protected where exposed.

Good call Scott.

cool.

[Paul W. Abernathy]

well...hopefully when you see Plumbing Pipe being used for electrical conduit...you call that out also....if you see it all the time we have a serial DIYer on the loose.....lol

[Greg Fretwell]

Actually if that is really USE I would question the fact that it is not "outside the building"

230.6 Conductors Considered Outside the Building.
Conductors shall be considered outside of a building or other structure under any of the following conditions:
(1) Where installed under not less than 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete beneath a building or other structure
(2) Where installed within a building or other structure in a raceway that is encased in concrete or brick not less than 50 mm (2 in.) thick

[Marc D. Shunk]

Originally Posted by Greg Fretwell

Actually if that is really USE I would question the fact that it is not "outside the building"

It's been years and years since USE hasn't also been dual rated as other conductor types such as RHHW and XHHW.

[Speedy Petey]

Originally Posted by Marc D. Shunk

It's been years and years since USE hasn't also been dual rated as other conductor types such as RHHW and XHHW.

...and that installation is relatively new due to the cheesy DIY "two-nail" romex staples used.

[Paul Pendley]

I hope you didnt put that comment in your report as stated on the photo. That comment will probably end up filling some attorneys pocket. The reason I say this is because you have given an opinuanated "cure" to the defincency that you found. I ask u this.....You stated "should be in conduit" So if I as a homeowner decide to have this repaired and use the wrong type of conduit and my kids decide to play there and get electricuted..Are you responsible for this???? I would think the proper statement here would be that the condition does not appear to be compliant with industry standards and should be further evaluated by a proffesional licensed electrical contractor.