I think the difference is that you have to take out screws to remove the grill. In my opinion, that makes it a building finish, and that in turn makes the cord concealed.
Steve
400.8(5)
- Thread starter charlie b
- Start date
- Status
I think the difference is that you have to take out screws to remove the grill. In my opinion, that makes it a building finish, and that in turn makes the cord concealed.
Steve
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Many thanks for the comments. Sorry to take so long to get back here. I had to leave work early yesterday, since we were having dinner guests for St. Patrick's Day, and since I had a few "chores" to take care of before they arrived.
There is a crawl space that runs from stage front to stage rear, and from stage left to stage right, and that is about 24 inches in height. Conduits would be run in this area to outlet boxes close to the locations of the speakers.
When the engineer working on this project (his task is audio/visual design) asked for my opinion yesterday, I told him I thought it was code compliant. But I also said I would ask for the opinions of forum members. On further reflection, and upon reading some of your comments, I still believe this is compliant. My answers to my own questions would be no, and not applicable, in that order.
There is a crawl space that runs from stage front to stage rear, and from stage left to stage right, and that is about 24 inches in height. Conduits would be run in this area to outlet boxes close to the locations of the speakers.
When the engineer working on this project (his task is audio/visual design) asked for my opinion yesterday, I told him I thought it was code compliant. But I also said I would ask for the opinions of forum members. On further reflection, and upon reading some of your comments, I still believe this is compliant. My answers to my own questions would be no, and not applicable, in that order.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
Yes, I agree with you. And that's what my point was, if you only have to remove a ceiling tile and it's not compliant, then how would having to remove a grill make it comliant?
LawnGuyLandSparky
Senior Member
Auditoriums typically have 750-2500 watt lekos tucked into ceiling niches. They are concealed by plaster ceilings and only accessable by crawl space/ catwalks above the proscenium. If this artical were enforced, 90% of all theatrical installations would be non code compliant.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
That is probably true and that just means they need to find another way to do it. Maybe the speakers just need to be hard wired.
So they could put hinges and latches on the grills and call it good to go.
Roger
Roger:
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic, or not.
But, In my opinion, yes, latches on the speaker grills (or any other means to get access to the cords without removing screws) would make it good to go. I guess I think the screws make all the difference between being concealed or not.
Well, there is one difference. The code specifically states cords can not be located above a suspended ceiling. So cords can be located behind panels designed to allow access. They just can't be located behind ceiling panels even if they allow access.
I think it makes sense, although I'm having a hard time putting it into words.
Steve
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Engineer
Once again, thanks for the comments. Here is my viewpoint:
The code does not say anything about the cords being accessible, let alone readily accessible. Nothing restricts the use of screws versus hinges. All it says is that the cord cannot be "concealed" by a wall. That tells me, for example, that if a cord were laid between the studs of a wall, but instead of sheetrock the studs were covered up with a transparent sheet of hard plastic that was screwed into the studs, this would not violate 400.8, because the cord is not ?concealed.? The issue is not our ability to get at the cord to fix it, nor the ease of access to the cord. The issue is being able to discover degradation or damage; the issue is being able to ?see? the cord.
That is the basis for my opinion that having the speaker?s cord plugged into a receptacle outlet that is located behind a grill is code compliant. As long as the cord is not concealed, as long as it can be seen through the grill, it passes the 400.8(5) constraint, even if the grill is screwed into place.
The code does not say anything about the cords being accessible, let alone readily accessible. Nothing restricts the use of screws versus hinges. All it says is that the cord cannot be "concealed" by a wall. That tells me, for example, that if a cord were laid between the studs of a wall, but instead of sheetrock the studs were covered up with a transparent sheet of hard plastic that was screwed into the studs, this would not violate 400.8, because the cord is not ?concealed.? The issue is not our ability to get at the cord to fix it, nor the ease of access to the cord. The issue is being able to discover degradation or damage; the issue is being able to ?see? the cord.
That is the basis for my opinion that having the speaker?s cord plugged into a receptacle outlet that is located behind a grill is code compliant. As long as the cord is not concealed, as long as it can be seen through the grill, it passes the 400.8(5) constraint, even if the grill is screwed into place.
Charlie:
I agree, nothing says they have to be "readily accessible". But I don't think the definition of "Concealed" in article 100 supports the rest of your reasoning:
Concealed: Rendered inaccessible by the structure or finish of the building.
However, I'm leaning more toward this being allowed based on the fact that the speaker grills can be removed to access the cords.
Steve
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
No that make sense and is a good argument, I'm not sure I'm buying it, but I like the way you think.
No that make sense and is a good argument, I'm not sure I'm buying it, but I like the way you think.
I can't really take credit for that.
Someone else (probably on this forum) pointed out that 400.8(5) really has two different parts.
Whoever it was sold me on the idea that the second part was necessary to prohibit cords above a suspended ceiling, since the area above a suspended ceiling is considered exposed. (From the definition of exposed - "On or attached to the surface, or behind panels designed to allow access.)
Steve
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
I can't really take credit for that.
Someone else (probably on this forum) pointed out that 400.8(5) really has two different parts.
Whoever it was sold me on the idea that the second part was necessary to prohibit cords above a suspended ceiling, since the area above a suspended ceiling is considered exposed. (From the definition of exposed - "On or attached to the surface, or behind panels designed to allow access.)
Steve
I won't tell.- Status