Overcurrent Devices Over Steps

[480sparky]

Good point. so how big does the landing have to be to stop a rolling body down a flight of stairs?

Big enough.

I'm sure the building codes have that information. But I'm just a stupid electrician.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Well that depends, how long would you have fallen without the landing? :smile:

I used to inspect a roller coaster and it was about 100' high with one continuous stair way to the top, coming back down the stairs you could not help but think how bad it would suck to trip near the top of the stairs and roll like a slinky to the bottom.

Bob, It can't be too bad...I see it in the movies and on TV all the time...:wink:

What about the fatique one may feel after troubleshooting for a period of time, while standing on one tread, especially when it is hot out...

 

[mdshunk]

What about the fatique one may feel after troubleshooting for a period of time, while standing on one tread, especially when it is hot out...

I really don't think that had anything to do with it. About two or three times a week I feel like I'm standing on my head, on one leg, to work on something. Just part of the job.

 

[nakulak]

sometimes falling down stairs can be a good thing
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0%2C22884%2C23101330-5005940%2C00.html

oh yeah, and according to this article, 600 people a year die from falling out of bed !
http://www.fearlessflight.com/airplane-disasters-plane-crash-statistics

 

[charlie]

How a CMP develops new code language

How a CMP develops new code language

The general feeling of all panel members is that all proposals should be rejected. Upon reading a proposal, valid reasons must be found for rejecting a proposal. The reasons for rejection are normally poor substantiation or there is no problem that is being corrected by the proposal. If the panel member can find no solid reason to reject, then he has to accept the proposal. During the discussion, other panel members are doing the same thing and will attempt to sway other panel members who think contrary to their position. After the panel meeting, there is a written ballot where everyone will see the other panel member's comments. If they desire, they may then change their vote. This process is repeated in the comment stage.

In the case of the overcurrent device installation over the stairs, most of us were in agreement that it should not be done but didn't wish to make a rule that would have unintended consequences. I believe the new section is clear and doesn't over step the intent of the panel.

 

[acrwc10]

It makes sense, but I just cant help at laugh at the idea of someone getting up after falling and going, thank god that landing was there.... :grin:

Maybe that is why they are called "Landings" and not something else like "platforms" or "that wide stair that my fall ended at." :grin:
And on that point just how many stairs up or down can you have a switch before it doesn't count as being there any more ?

 

[mdshunk]

And on that point just how many stairs up or down can you have a switch before it doesn't count as being there any more ?

At some point you just sorta "know" if it's right or wrong.

 

[acrwc10]

At some point you just sorta "know" if it's right or wrong.

View attachment 1981

Jiminy Cricket, does that mean I need to let my conscience be my guide ?

 

[ryan_618]

Ryan had some great pictures of an extreme example of that.

Either he, the building official or the POCO forced some reworking to be done to make the service more accessible.

Yes. Here is a series of pictures, before and after I required a gaurdrail to be installed:

I cited the general provision of 110.26, which is providing safe and ready access. I hate trying to interpret the code, and figure out what "safe" means, but I thought that this installation didn't meet the intent (or the letter) of the section.

 

[ryan_618]

The building code requires a landing for every so many risers. I'm not sure what the exact number is, however. Similarly, the ADA requires a flat spot in wheelchair ramps every so many lineal feet. I suppose that's to stop runaway wheelchairs?

You must have a landing for every 12' feet of vertical rise of stair.
You must also have a landing for every 30" of vertical rise for a ramp. The intent isn't for "runaway wheelchairs", it is actually so you can get yourself up the ramp in the chair. I really had my eyes opened when I was in a wheelchair for a short period of time. 30" of a 1:12 ramp is actually an amazingly hard obstacle to overcome in a chair.

 

[ryan_618]

I believe the new section is clear and doesn't over step the intent of the panel.

Charlie, you know I love you, but I think CMP 10 stepped out of bounds on this rule...they basically snuck this in because CMP 1 (the panel that has purview over the issue) wouldn't pass it.
I understand that Article 240 covers the "location" of overcurrent devices in it's purview, but I think the intent of the scope of the Article is the location of the OCP in the circuit (as in 240.21). I personally think that all of 240.24 should be relocated into different articles (such as 408 and 110). I see no reason that CMP 10 should deal with anything other keeping conductors from melting.

 

[iwire]

I personally think that all of 240.24 should be relocated into different articles (such as 408 and 110). I see no reason that CMP 10 should deal with anything other keeping conductors from melting.

Seems like that ship sailed long ago. :smile:

 

[ryan_618]

Seems like that ship sailed long ago. :smile:

No doubt about that, but I still think it needs to be relocated...perhaps I'll make some proposals in the 2011.

 

[charlie]

. . . I understand that Article 240 covers the "location" of overcurrent devices in it's purview, but I think the intent of the scope of the Article is the location of the OCP in the circuit (as in 240.21). I personally think that all of 240.24 should be relocated into different articles (such as 408 and 110). I see no reason that CMP 10 should deal with anything other keeping conductors from melting.

Many CMPs use their language to "overrule" other panels. For instance, the provisions in 240.21(B)(5) and 240.21(C)(4) both require the circuit to terminate in a single overcurrent device. This is contrary to the intent of panel 4 in articles 225 and 230 where six is permitted. I have fought this battle for several cycles and have given up. Since the smaller multiple installations use less expensive equipment than the single large installations, the manufacturers have really pushed for the provisions to remain the same.

I don't totally disagree with you but I still like the new language.