Wireway Sizing Straight pull

[infinity]

Someone questioned the wireway in this photo that I snapped on a job a while ago. The issue in question revolves around the size of the wireway. The 3-FMC's are I believe to be 2.5" or 3" and the wireway is likely a 12X12. Is there an issue with the 8X requirement for the raceways and the entry into the transformer?

 

[yired29]

Someone questioned the wireway in this photo that I snapped on a job a while ago. The issue in question revolves around the size of the wireway. The 3-FMC's are I believe to be 2.5" or 3" and the wireway is likely a 12X12. Is there an issue with the 8X requirement for the raceways and the entry into the transformer?

Well if they are #4 AWG or larger than 314.28(A)(1) should apply. Could a inspector call that an angle pull 314.28(A)(2)? I believe the size would be the same with both calculations with 3 raceways installed. 366.58 (B) Auxiliary Gutters Used as Pull Boxes the same rules apply from 314.28. So if 3 inch raceways straight pull 314.28(A)(1) 8 x 3 = 24inches. Angle pull 314.28(A)(2) 3 x 6 + 3 + 3 = 24 inches. All that being said I believe that is a very good looking installation.

 

[iwire]

Rob I am always impressed with the work you post.

 

[mivey]

Nice. You can tell you take pride in your work.

 

[augie47]

It would be a "stretch" that I should not make, but I'd most likely look at it as an auxiliary gutter and not a "pull box". I know it' semantics, but, to me, I can sure live with the position that the conductors weren't "pulled"

 

[iwire]

Nice. You can tell you take pride in your work.

Yeah even all the stub ups under the panel are in line and straight, often they are leaning every which way.

 

[SEO]

I'm sure Rob always does good work. His pictures tell the story.

 

[infinity]

Rob I am always impressed with the work you post.

Nice. You can tell you take pride in your work.

Yeah even all the stub ups under the panel are in line and straight, often they are leaning every which way.

I'm sure Rob always does good work. His pictures tell the story.

Thanks for the kind words.

I do take a lot of pride in my work. I've been fortunate through the years to work with people who also take pride in the finished product and allow the time to do a nice job. IMO it doesn't take much longer to do a neat job and the people who we work for are paying for high quality craftsmanship.

So back to the question, does anyone see this install a violation of artcile 314.28? This is the way the engineer designed it and I never really thought about it at the time.

 

[RUWired]

Rob, i don't see the conductors set up as a straight pull, its more angle pull. IMO the raceways entries should be 24" from the entry into the transformer.

Rick

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Rob,
I do see it as a violation of that section.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

It would be a "stretch" that I should not make, but I'd most likely look at it as an auxiliary gutter and not a "pull box". I know it' semantics, but, to me, I can sure live with the position that the conductors weren't "pulled"

I'm with augie. Call it an auxiliary gutter and it's not a NEC violation.

Call it a pull box or wireway and it's a violation.

 

[yired29]

I'm with augie. Call it an auxiliary gutter and it's not a NEC violation.

Call it a pull box or wireway and it's a violation.

even if you call it an auxiliary gutter isn't being used as a pull box.

366.58 (B) Auxiliary Gutters Used as Pull Boxes. Where insulated conductors 4 AWG or larger are pulled through an auxiliary gutter, the distance between raceway and cable entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less than that required in 314.28(A)(1) for straight pulls and 314.28(A)(2) for angle pulls.

I also see it as a violation.

I dont believe it would ever cause a problem but a violation non the less

But as before it all looks like a very professional install.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

even if you call it an auxiliary gutter isn't being used as a pull box.

366.58 (B) Auxiliary Gutters Used as Pull Boxes. Where insulated conductors 4 AWG or larger are pulled through an auxiliary gutter, the distance between raceway and cable entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less than that required in 314.28(A)(1) for straight pulls and 314.28(A)(2) for angle pulls.

Oops, my bad, thanks.

I also see it as a violation.

I dont believe it would ever cause a problem but a violation non the less

But as before it all looks like a very professional install.

I agree, it looks great and don't see it as a problem. But if we are going to be picky, are the conductors bundled on each side of the panel for more than 2'? Is so, should they "technically" be derated?

 

[iMuse97]

It would be a "stretch" that I should not make, but I'd most likely look at it as an auxiliary gutter and not a "pull box". I know it' semantics, but, to me, I can sure live with the position that the conductors weren't "pulled"

I'd like to agree with Gus on this one, and try to call it an auxiliary gutter, and say they weren't pulled through.

366.58 (B) Auxiliary Gutters Used as Pull Boxes. Where insulated conductors 4 AWG or larger are pulled through an auxiliary gutter, the distance between raceway and cable entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less than that required in 314.28(A)(1) for straight pulls and 314.28(A)(2) for angle pulls.

But I do think it is a violation. However, I'd have had no problem getting those wires through there, and kudos to Rob for another fine job.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

The NEC cannot contemplate every installation that can be made in the field. If it could, we would have a document that could conceivably be a gazillion pages.

So, when codes are written, they try there best to cover as much territory as possible.


I am not sure how people say the conductors are not "pulled" through this wireway/auxillary gutter. Was the gutter designed and manufactured with the conductors in place?

So, even though this is a violation, there is plenty of room to install the conductors due to the layout of the gutter and equipment. This is another instance where the code cannot be forseen to not match the installation.

I believe that 90.4 (and I rarely use this section) would permit an inspector to say this installation meets the safety the NEC requires for installation. "...permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety."

Now all we need is Special Permission. In NYS that would take a signature by the building official. It is rare that they give their signature for electrical inspectors work.

 

[augie47]

The NEC cannot contemplate every installation that can be made in the field. If it could, we would have a document that could conceivably be a gazillion pages.

So, when codes are written, they try there best to cover as much territory as possible.


I am not sure how people say the conductors are not "pulled" through this wireway/auxillary gutter. Was the gutter designed and manufactured with the conductors in place?

So, even though this is a violation, there is plenty of room to install the conductors due to the layout of the gutter and equipment. This is another instance where the code cannot be forseen to not match the installation.

I believe that 90.4 (and I rarely use this section) would permit an inspector to say this installation meets the safety the NEC requires for installation. "...permit alternative methods where it is assured that equivalent objectives can be achieved by establishing and maintaining effective safety."

Now all we need is Special Permission. In NYS that would take a signature by the building official. It is rare that they give their signature for electrical inspectors work.

I also try every approach prior to using 90.4 as I beleive that simply leads to inspection anarchy. In this case my approach would be the wires were not "pulled", they were "pushed"

 

[iwire]

Considering I have an installation very close to the same as Robs (12 x 12 trough, 4" FMC, 600 Kcmil) This has been an interesting thread.

I also try every approach prior to using 90.4 as I believe that simply leads to inspection anarchy. In this case my approach would be the wires were not "pulled", they were "pushed"

I would say I placed :grin: the wires in the trough, we formed them to shape on the floor then placed them into the trough.

 

[infinity]

I agree, it looks great and don't see it as a problem. But if we are going to be picky, are the conductors bundled on each side of the panel for more than 2'? Is so, should they "technically" be derated?

The exception to 310.15(A)(2) should take care of that since those bundled conductors were all well over 100'.

I like the rationale about the conductors being placed in an auxiliary gutter.

 

[SEO]

When I run into a situation like this I ask myself what is the hazzard and in Robs picture of the installation, I don't see one. There are code complient installations that pose more concern than this one. That being said I would approach the inspector and get a judgement from him sooner then later. I know inspectors that take the NEC literally and others that use common sense and experience in a situation like yours.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

The exception to 310.15(A)(2) should take care of that since those bundled conductors were all well over 100'.

Thanks for the lesson Rob!

It's a good day, I learned something today.