ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Top Posters(30 Days)
Trumpy 3
dsk 3
Recent Posts
Feed to spa panel
by HotLine1. 06/25/17 05:28 PM
Weatherhead, POA, height?
by HotLine1. 06/24/17 02:37 PM
Windows 7 update problem
by ampherder. 06/21/17 07:01 AM
Norwegian power?
by dsk. 06/19/17 03:40 PM
Anyone ever take a Furnas A14D drum sw apart?
by gfretwell. 06/17/17 08:14 PM
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Popular Topics(Views)
238,222 Are you busy
173,433 Re: Forum
166,245 Need opinion
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 44 guests, and 11 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
#200259 - 03/26/11 08:11 PM Sec.110.24  
harold endean  Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
Boonton, NJ
Let me see if I get this right. I just got my new 2011 NEC Analysis of the 2011 and under sec. 110.24 you are going to be required to field mark the Available Fault Current at the service equipment.
OK, that sounds safe, but do you think it would really work? What will happen if the POCO changes out transformers on the street a week or two later? Will they come into the building and remark the service equipment?

I am not trying to be a bad boy or anything, just trying to play devils advocate and trying to see things through in the real world.


2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides

#200270 - 03/27/11 08:41 AM Re: Sec.110.24 [Re: harold endean]  
ghost307  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 902
Chicago Illinois USA
According to the folks who presented this subject at IAEI who were behind that part of 110.24 their intention was only to make the NEC tell you that there could be a hazard. As long as you don't open the covers to work anything live that's all you need.
If you were going to get close to unguarded conductors or bus, then then OSHA regulations would require that you do all the math and post the values on the outside.

There's no way that a calculated value will be valid forever...I'm reworking a place now that was first electrified bask when open-front black slate switchboards were considered cutting edge technology. Somehow I would not blindly trust any values written the original warning labels.
It was kind of amusing when we had folks bidding on the work; one guy saw the old board and refused to believe that all of the power for the whole place came through that 'antique'. He kept looking all over the building for "the real main electrical service".
If he submits the winning bid, this could get interesting very quickly.
smile


Ghost307

#200295 - 03/27/11 08:08 PM Re: Sec.110.24 [Re: harold endean]  
HotLine1  Offline


Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,833
Brick, NJ USA
Ghost:

Please don't confuse 110.16 Arc Flash Hazard Warning with 110.24 Available Fault Current labeling and calculations.



John

#200298 - 03/27/11 10:37 PM Re: Sec.110.24 [Re: harold endean]  
ghost307  Offline
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 902
Chicago Illinois USA
Sorry, folks.
I misread the original post; but I hear so much from clients about having to calculate and list the arc flash data on equipment that I jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Thanks for catching my error.


Ghost307

#200309 - 03/28/11 10:01 AM Re: Sec.110.24 [Re: harold endean]  
HotLine1  Offline


Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,833
Brick, NJ USA
Ghost:
Apology was not necessary; that is a common misconception of the two terms.

There's a thread around somewhere that debated the terminology and differing opinions by a lot of us, myself included.



John


Member Spotlight
sparky66wv
sparky66wv
West Virginia
Posts: 2,236
Joined: November 2000
Show All Member Profiles 
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.013s Queries: 15 (0.002s) Memory: 0.7691 MB (Peak: 0.9085 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-06-26 00:11:55 UTC