ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Safety at heights?
by gfretwell - 04/23/24 03:03 PM
Old low volt E10 sockets - supplier or alternative
by gfretwell - 04/21/24 11:20 AM
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
2 members (Scott35, HotLine1), 235 guests, and 27 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#63487 03/19/06 12:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 3
Cat Servant
Member
We might be confusing "in the floor" with "ON the floor".

Floor boxes, and their covers, are evaluated with a lot of attention given to "what happens when the floor is mopped or the carpet is cleaned?" Likewise, it is assumed that the receptacles will be in the middle of the floor, for all to run into.

Remove those concerns, and then the remaining worry is "what about falling crud?" I think you can see why the NEC bans 'face-up' receptacles in kitchen counters.

I think a case for mounting receptacles on the floor, face up, where protected by furniture can be made. Think of that cord dropping between a desk and the wall; the plug is certainly more likely to be damaged (by the desk pressing onto it) coming out of the wall, than coming up from the floor. While there might be a possibility of someone spilling their coffee' this risk is not even in the same league as a kitchen counter (which is deliberately made wet and dirty, regularily).

I see this as a design issue. Plugmold on the floor, behind the sofa? Sure. Plugmold on the wall, along the jacuzzi? No Way.

#63488 03/19/06 01:10 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,374
R
Moderator
406.4(E) is the only section that is relevent in my opinion, and its scope is very limited.


Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City
#63489 03/19/06 01:11 PM
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 681
P
Member
I agree with Reno. This is not a code issue, but a design issue. Receptacles are permitted faceup in/on the floor. The subject to severe physical damage is important. The only one(s) who can make that judgement are the ones who can actually physically see it. From our vantage point here, we cannot.
They make "doghouse" type enclosures designed for this type of installation. Would that be a consideration? Remember part of the design consideration is the environment in which this installation is in...CHILDREN!!!


Pierre Belarge
#63490 03/19/06 02:35 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
E
e57 Offline
Member
Scott, it looks a convienient foot rest in that picture, due to placement alone.

"This will be going into a computer room for elementry school kids under the desk."

That in mind, it is an attractive nuisance

On top of that, unlike many Floor Outlets, or IMO what should be more appropriate in situations like that, Floor Access Boxes. That would be mop tight, resistive to splilled Cool Aid, accumilatate dirt and debris over time, and reccessed to resist damage to the outlet. (Back in my service work days, I saw many receptical failures/damage due to things like that.) As well as facilitate repurposing of the room of reconfiguration of the furnature in the future.

Even "Dog-House" fittings with a flex mounted to the feed the stuff mounted on the furnature would be better. I have done that many times.... Just about every office environment.


Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
#63491 03/19/06 02:50 PM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Mark

The original post stated;

Quote
I do not think this is ok, but I do not have any code article to back it up.

I am sure many of us have seen outlets damaged from being placed face up. That does not change the fact they are allowable and no inspector should be turning them down.

It's strictly a design choice.

Bob


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#63492 03/19/06 03:57 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931
Likes: 34
G
Member
If this is in a school it won't usually be the regular muni inspector looking at it. Around here the board of education has it's own inspector and their own rules.
I see a little kid sitting there kicking that plug until something happens.

Even if it passes the inspection I bet you will be back ... but I guess that is another job. You gotta eat too [Linked Image]


Greg Fretwell
#63493 03/20/06 10:01 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
E
e57 Offline
Member
Bob, I don't think I am alone in thinking it is a bad idea... And I think any Inspector worth his salt should pull out his "Subject to Physical Damage" punk card under the circumstances. In case you hadn't noticed the orginal poster also didn't think it was a good idea, and not his choice of design either. Seems to be his only chance IMO. [Linked Image]


Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
#63494 03/21/06 07:07 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Mark did you see me say I think it is a great idea? [Linked Image]

What I can not agree with is the inspector failing it. That would be inconsistent with standard trade practices.

It is a very common installation and IMO an inspector would be on shaky ground to fail it. Heck even 'electure' is not seeing a violation and he is fairly conservative. [Linked Image]

We install hundreds of outlets in the floors of department stores, as soon as the cap is removed it is lost.

As soon as a lamp or other display is plugged in it is a trip hazard and may 'light up' under someones foot.

It is just a result of needing electricity where there are no walls. Pendant drops are not an option.

Would you rather the outlet was not installed and they run cords across the floor?

Of course the installer can always refuse to do the work.

JMO, Bob


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5