ECN Forum
Posted By: Admin Is this a Violation? - 07/09/04 04:01 PM
Quote
Is this a Violation?

- Ron
[Linked Image]
Posted By: pauluk Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/09/04 07:21 PM
I'll hazard a guess that it could be if the connectors were used as a required disconnect for whatever machinery is running on them, as the plugs would not be quickly and easily withdrawable.
Posted By: Bill Addiss Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/09/04 07:24 PM
I was thinking the same thing Paul.

Bill
Posted By: HotLine1 Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/09/04 07:36 PM
As above, if the caps are the disco, yes, a red sticker.

Also, is this a use of cord that is not compliant with Art 400.7 / 400.8 limitations to usage of cord? As the install is not completly visable, no determination can be made.

If pull out is a problem, the installer should have considered twistlock devices, in lieu of ty-wraps.

John
Posted By: electure Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/09/04 09:44 PM
Also, the sealtite flex doesn't appear to be secured within 12" of the boxes, so yes.
350.30(A)
We're also looking at 225° (at least) of bend just to get out of the center box. Could it possibly exceed 360° between pull points?
350.26
Posted By: iwire Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/09/04 10:01 PM
Generally we use twist locks. [Linked Image]

This looks to me like a under a data room floor.

If it is under 645 rules the liquid-tight need not be secured, the same for the box. 645.6(E)

We do a lot of installs where the UPS maker supplies pre-made liquid-tight whips with FS type boxes and receptacles.

For better or worse all you do is drop them in like extension cords.

Bob
Posted By: iwire Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/09/04 10:05 PM
The 3/4" square tube legs that are bonded with the bare copper along with what looks like a piece of fiberoptic cable in the bottom of the picture are what makes me think this is a 645 room.

Bob
Posted By: Ron Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/09/04 10:20 PM
Sorry to be away for so much activity.
It is an Article 645 installation. The plugs are for computer servers, not requiring a means of disconnect like a motor.
Posted By: Ron Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/09/04 10:22 PM
The server cords do not have twist lock plugs, hence the straight blade receptacle. No one wants to cut the factory plug off a server.
Posted By: electure Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/10/04 01:53 AM
Bob,
Don't you mean 645.5(E)??

Now read 645.5(D)(2)
"installed in accordance with 310.11"
These don't look like a specially listed whip to me.
Posted By: iwire Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/10/04 05:30 PM
Scott yes I meant 645.5(E)sorry. [Linked Image]

That aside I stand by my statement read this section carefully and look for the 'or'. [Linked Image]

Quote
645.5(E) Securing in Place. Power cables; communications cables; connecting cables; interconnecting cables; and associated boxes, connectors, plugs, and receptacles that are listed as part of, or for, information technology equipment shall not be required to be secured in place.

You can read that or with two different meanings. [Linked Image]

Cables listed as part of, or cables for information technology equipment.

The premade whips we get are listed as part of the info. tec. equp.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/10/04 08:06 PM
I think there may be a possible violation with the type of sealtight that is used. If the underfloor space is used as a plenum I doubt if the grey sealtight is rated for use in plenum spaces.
Posted By: electure Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/10/04 08:39 PM
Bob,I also stand by mine

645(D)...."shall be permitted under a raised floor, provided the following conditions are met."
(2) "The branch-circuit supply conductors to receptacles or field-wired equipment are in rigid, metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, metal wireway, surface metal raceway with metal cover, nonmetallic surface raceway, flexible metal conduit, liquidtight flexible metal conduit, or liquidtight flexible nonmetallic conduit, Type MI cable, Type MC cable, or Type AC cable.
These conductors shall be installed in accordance with the requirements of 300.11"

"300.11 Securing and Supporting
(A) Secured in Place.
Raceways, cable assemblies, boxes, cabinets and fittings shall be securely fastened in place"........

If that were the case, all of 645(D)(2) would be for nothing.
Do you agree that it's just sealtite and boxes field assembled?
Under your reasoning, could I run EMT without securing it?

Glad to see we're back to our "normal" selves [Linked Image]
I was fearing we'd begin to agree on everything [Linked Image] [Linked Image]
Posted By: iwire Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/10/04 08:46 PM
I had to disagree I was feeling to nice! [Linked Image]

I agree you are correct about the intent. [Linked Image]

Read 645.5(E) and notice no mention of EMT or LFMC the ease of supports is only for cables and the assoiciated boxes.

Bob
Posted By: timmp Re: Is this a Violation? - 07/10/04 11:13 PM
When working for a mulitnational company, the home office computer room did this to ensure that no computer or component was accidently disconnected while cleaning, moving, or regular maintenance.

The computer room had a master disconnect push button tho.
© ECN Electrical Forums