ECN Forum Forums Photo Discussion Forums Photos for General Discussion Are these "portable load centers" legal to code?

Gfretwell: 525, dealing with carnivals and similar functions, is a fair section to reference. I think your citations of 525.22 and 525.23 are quite proper, and more appropriate than just the catch-all category of 'temporary installations,' Asticle 590.

That said, it appears to me that this assembly can certainly qualify. Mounted on the same board as it is, I think we have to interpret 'within the box' requirement of 535.24 to have been met; we certainly apply that standard to main disconnect / gutter / meter-main assemblies.

n1ist, I wouldn't doubt that everything is connected with chase nipples. I might even accept simple plastic bushings, as long as some means is used to ensure grounding continuity.

When I come across such a construction - or, when I make one myself - I ask whether I think the thing would meet the requirements a commercial product would have to meet. I'm willing to cut the maker some slack; for example, the DIY 'extansion cord light fixture' featured elsewhere on this forum lacks a sticker specifying the largest wattage lamp, and I would not hold that against a guy in the field.

The next question is whether the item is appropriate for the circumstances. Again, as an example, commercially made 'spider boxes' are made for use in wet locations, while this assembly is not. Is it in a wet location? If not, I see no need for it to meet those requirements.

The final factor ought to apply equally to all items, whether DIY or factory made: Maintenance.

In the debate of DIY cords, many photos were posted of damaged assemblies, often missing parts. That's not fair; anything can be broken. If the equipment is damaged or incomplete, it needs to be taken out of service, regardless of whether or not it has a "UL sticker."

Yep, they were laying on the floor, leaned up against columns, lying flat under tables, and so on.

There were various types; some were just full of NEMA 5-20 outlets like the one there; I saw others with NEMA L5-30, NEMA L6-20 or 30 and other outlet types in a few of the boxes.

It's inventive; if they need a specific type of outlet somewhere on the floor, they just have to pull the right one out of storage and bring it out.

Necessity, The 'mother' of invention.

My Mom, never made a mistake!

GFI at a minimum. Failed temp status.

Just me.

I looked at it and 2 things bother me. The SO cord in the Romex connector and there is something wrong if this is really 3p, How do you get "220v"? (breakers 1 & 2) and is this really a 3p panel?

That does look like a Russell Stoll 7328/7428 (60a 208 3p) plug/receptacle in the background but I don't see any numbers.

I can think of no requirement for GFI protection based on the NEC. This is not a construction site, so Article 590 does not require GFI protection. Judging by the enclosures, this is an indoor installation, so the requirements in 210.8(B) (4) do not apply either.

Greg, the two-screw romex connector is almost certainly also listed for SO, though I also would prefer a connector with better strain relief.

There are two different strain relief test standards, but the code does nt address the issue. UL standards do address this point, and I'm pretty sure they would also require a better grip; but as far as the NEC is concerned, it gats a 'pass.'

I do not think it's three-phase; I'm pretty sure that panel is available in single phase only. (After all, there's only one row of breakers).

Tom, I think we can find the GFCI requirement when we apply Article 525 (Carnivals and Fairs) to this gizmo, though the GFCI can be part of the plugs on the cords, rather than built into this assembly.

I guess I just remember getting beat up about those kind of connectors when we could still use SO cord under computer room floors. They wanted some kind of cord grip with a rubber insert and a locking ring like the RS devices use.

Of course when they said everything had to be FMC they just used the regular clamp connectors that immediately pulled out and you were looking at unprotected THHN.
Those were designed for a raceway that gets strapped within 12" of the box according to a rep I talked to about it.

Yea, those little 'assumptions' the factory makes, that they don't tell you about!

The issue of support is probably what's at the core of the different strain relief tests. IIRC, the two-screw connectors would only be tested to a 35# pull, while the ones with the rubber grommets get a 90# pull. (Anyone who knows better, please correct me!)