Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Ventilation System for CID2

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    Have you ever seen a motor nameplate "marked" for Class I, Division 2? Post a nameplate screen shot or vendor's cut sheet that indicates it's marked.
    it’s a separate tag - not on the nameplate itself


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    Have you ever seen a motor nameplate "marked" for Class I, Division 2? Post a nameplate screen shot or vendor's cut sheet that indicates it's marked.
    Just reviewed over 900 induction squirrel cage motors on site - many were not clearly marked for area classification and did not have T ratings
    We had to contact Baldor-Reliance, TECO, GE, Siemens and others directly to get their cutsheets showing CI D2 - GPS C and D.
    A good indicator —if you see IEEE 841 anywhere on the motor you’re probably good to go.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    A good indicator —if you see IEEE 841 anywhere on the motor you’re probably good to go.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yea, I know. I helped Ralph Haynes write the IEEE paper it was based on. So - how many of those 900 motors had such a marking?
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    Yea, I know. I helped Ralph Haynes write the IEEE paper it was based on. So - how many of those 900 motors had such a marking?
    Almost all motors supplied by TECO, GE and Siemens were properly marked, but the Baldor-Reliance were not - well over half. We were especially concerned about T ratings. I had to work with the vendor in N Carolina to get paperwork - i.e. letters emails etc confirming they were constructed to meet CID2, C/D with T3.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    Almost all motors supplied by TECO, GE and Siemens were properly marked, but the Baldor-Reliance were not - well over half. We were especially concerned about T ratings. I had to work with the vendor in N Carolina to get paperwork - i.e. letters emails etc confirming they were constructed to meet CID2, C/D with T3.
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    BTW That IEEE 841 mark is only marketing hype, it means nothing. Any NEMA three-phase TEFC is "Suitable" [500.8(A)] for Class I, Division 2. Especially, those with a typical petrochem spec'ed Class B temperature rise which must be marked on the motor per Section 430.7(A)(5). Fifty60 did a fair analysis in Post #10. It is Class II, you really have to worry about.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    BTW That IEEE 841 mark is only marketing hype, it means nothing. Any NEMA three-phase TEFC is "Suitable" [500.8(A)] for Class I, Division 2. Especially, those with a typical petrochem spec'ed Class B temperature rise which must be marked on the motor per Section 430.7(A)(5). Fifty60 did a fair analysis in Post #10. It is Class II, you really have to worry about.


    True. But rated temp rise as defined by NEMA, i.e. Class: A=105°C,B=130°C, F=155°C, H=180°C, is not exactly the same as T rating.
    To find the expected operating temperature of specific motor you’d take ambient temperature plus temperature rise at rated load. Say you have a TEFC Baldor-Reliance, ECP83665T-4, (3Ph 5Hp, 460V) installed indoors in a process-related, controlled environment @ 21.11C, (70 degrees F) ambient and a temp rise at rated load of 53C (127.4 degrees F); you’d expect only to see 74.11C (197.4 degrees F) total at the motor; this temp would have to be below the motor T rating.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    True. But rated temp rise as defined by NEMA, i.e. Class: A=105°C,B=130°C, F=155°C, H=180°C, is not exactly the same as T rating.
    To find the expected operating temperature of specific motor you’d take ambient temperature plus temperature rise at rated load. Say you have a TEFC Baldor-Reliance, ECP83665T-4, (3Ph 5Hp, 460V) installed indoors in a process-related, controlled environment @ 21.11C, (70 degrees F) ambient and a temp rise at rated load of 53C (127.4 degrees F); you’d expect only to see 74.11C (197.4 degrees F) total at the motor; this temp would have to be below the motor T rating.
    It is however, all that Section 501.125 requires.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    It is however, all that Section 501.125 requires.


    T-Codes are the tested CSA temperature for each motor and each motor is different. CSA started the Class and Div T-codes years ago.









  9. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Mission Viejo, CA
    Posts
    5,249
    Quote Originally Posted by Dale001289 View Post
    T-Codes are the tested CSA temperature for each motor and each motor is different. CSA started the Class and Div T-code yearsback and everyone just started using what they had in place instead of workingup a US version. UL does some similar things they do but not the extentof CSA.
    That's a big "Yes, So?". It still isn't an NEC, UL, NEMA or FedOSHA requirement. And standard TEFC motors have been successfully used in Class I, Division 2 since long before either one of us was even in the business.

    EDIT Add: And so were open drip-proof for ages.

    PPS: It's interesting how the US has become wag-the-dog, like we should adopt every other country's standards, when our own are just fine.
    Last edited by rbalex; 06-25-18 at 04:08 PM.
    "Bob"
    Robert B. Alexander, P.E.
    Answers based on 2014 NEC unless otherwise noted.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    520
    Quote Originally Posted by rbalex View Post
    That's a big "Yes, So?". It still isn't an NEC, UL, NEMA or FedOSHA requirement. And standard TEFC motors have been successfully used in Class I, Division 2 since long before either one of us was even in the business.

    EDIT Add: And so were open drip-proof for ages.

    PPS: It's interesting how the US has become wag-the-dog, like we should adopt every other country's standards, when our own are just fine.
    Not disputing your comment - but just to clarify: A general purpose TEFC motor would not be suitable for CID2. It has to be specified for this usage. (Sources: Siemens, TECO, Baldor-Reliance.)
    Went through all this last year during my motor survey on site. We had to replace 8 motors found not to be suited.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •