User Tag List

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
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    5,253
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    5,253
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    5,253
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    5,253
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
  •