When is a wireway defined as a pull box?

Strathead said:
I would politely ask him when it becomes a wireway. If the was such a thin as a wireway your picture would be it. Ironically, if you pull the wireways and replace with flex, aren't you violating the code that says the raceway must be in place prior to installing the conductors. I am with the person who said this is a dick move.
Click to expand...
I asked that very question of the state tech specialist this morning via email, received an out of office auto reply. Looking forward to what his answer will be when he replies.
I agree with you also on the flex observation, there are a few inconsistencies going on here IMO.
 
Just curious, I was was wonding if these are all feeder conductors. No service conductors.

I ask because I see a green wire with the conductors in the raceway and I see a bare leaving bottom of panel that attached to the ground bar.

Maybe feeders to detached building?
 
Tulsa Electrician said:
Just curious, I was was wonding if these are all feeder conductors. No service conductors.

I ask because I see a green wire with the conductors in the raceway and I see a bare leaving bottom of panel that attached to the ground bar.

Maybe feeders to detached building?
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct. All feeder conductors so all are fused.
Line side feeders from an outdoor service located 200-feet away.
Load side feeders to branch circuit panels within this building.
 
wwhitney said:
I guess the definition of Auxilliary Gutter in 366.2? The last sentence really sounds like an auxilliary gutter is an expansion of the panelboard enclosure, particularly the part about laying in conductors after the enclosures are installed. Seems like you don't "lay in" conductors through a nipple.

But others may have a better answer than this.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I've looked at the definition in 366.2 (2020, now relocated to Art 100 in2023 it appears) and the rest of 366. I don't see where it's stating how this gutter must be connected to the panel for it to be defined as an auxiliary gutter (conduit nipple, panel flange conn, etc).

Are there any thoughts how we would need to modify this installation for it to be defined as an auxiliary gutter?
In my mind we have it installed as such.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Article 366 Auxiliary Gutters are very rare. If the item in question is connected to the panel via a nipple, it is an Article 376 Wireway installation and not an Article 366 installation.
Click to expand...
Do you know where I would find the written definition telling me that we are a wireway and not an auxiliary gutter because of conduit nipple connection?
So far I've not happened onto that detail.
If we seem to be under the definition of wireway, what would cause the definition to change from wireway to being defined as a pull box?
 
ESLLC said:
Are there any thoughts how we would need to modify this installation for it to be defined as an auxiliary gutter?
Click to expand...
Maybe
Remove the bottom plate of the panel. Cut and gasket an equivalent size opening in the wireway top. Fabricate a skirt to cover the gap between the enclosures (the panel manufacturer may even have a standard part even though it is not on their webpage.

In many peoples' opinion, an auxiliary gutter increases the amount of gutter space in an enclosure. Conduit and nipples provide exits from not more room in the interior space
 
ESLLC said:
If we seem to be under the definition of wireway, what would cause the definition to change from wireway to being defined as a pull box?
Click to expand...
I think a wireway is a raceway for moving conducts from one location to another, while a pull box is an access point into a raceway to aid in installing conductors.
I believe most single sections of wireway are installed in place of large conduit bodies and pull boxes, and as have been applied using the wrong code sections.
 
infinity said:
I have seen guys run the raceway straight through the wireway directly into the panel where the conductors are larger than #6.
Click to expand...
I've done that myself though if you want to really nit pick the rules it probably not allowed without proper width of wireway.

Even with conductors smaller than #4 it can be a big pain to pull conductors into a rather narrow width wireway if the raceway entry is at the rear of the wireway.

Have also passed unbroken raceway through (perpendicularly to the) wireway in electrical rooms where said raceway contained class 2 signal circuits but was no easy way to route around the wireway. Does take up some of your wireway cross section so might need to pay attention to that.
 
My proposal for the 2017. Note the panel comment.

(B) Metallic Wireways Used as Pull Boxes.
Where insulated conductors 4 AWG or larger are pulled through a extend 4.5m (15 ft) or more in both directions from the wireway, the distance between raceway and cable entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less than that required by 314.28(A) (1) for straight pulls and 314.28(A) (2) for angle pulls. When transposing cable size into raceway size, the minimum metric designator (trade size) raceway required for the number and size of conductors in the cable shall be used.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
It is common practice to install wireways at equipment where the distances between conductor entry/exit points do not comply with the rules found in 314.28(A) (1) or (2). The current code rule does not permit this application. Most inspection authorities permit the installation of wireways containing conductors sized #4 and larger without requiring compliance with the rules in 314.28, where the wireway has been installed adjacent to equipment such as switchboards, panelboards or transformers. The rules in 314.28 are designed to minimize damage to the conductors as they are being installed. The risk of conductor damage where the conductors are installed without compliance with 314.28 is small where the conductor does not extend a long distance from the wireway.

Committee Statement
Resolution: No substantiation was submitted to show that damage to conductors is unlikely for raceway and cable entry spacings not meeting the requirements of 376.23(B)(1) & (2).
Click to expand...
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
My proposal for the 2017. Note the panel comment.

Click to expand...
Am I understanding correctly your comment that your proposal was to allow what we have installed in the photo IF the conductors were to extend less than 15-feet in one direction or the other?
If that is the case, that's exactly the information that I was hoping to find but of course it looks like it was not accepted and that wording obviously is not in the current NEC.
 
ESLLC said:
Am I understanding correctly your comment that your proposal was to allow what we have installed in the photo IF the conductors were to extend less than 15-feet in one direction or the other?
If that is the case, that's exactly the information that I was hoping to find but of course it looks like it was not accepted and that wording obviously is not in the current NEC.
Click to expand...
That was my intent. In my opinion, the likelihood of damage to the conductor insulation increase with the length of the conductor pulled though the wireway. I thought 15' was a reasonable compromise. but the panel comment says the distances prescribed in 314.28 apply any time the same conductor enters and leaves the wireway.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
That was my intent. In my opinion, the likelihood of damage to the conductor insulation increase with the length of the conductor pulled though the wireway. I thought 15' was a reasonable compromise. but the panel comment says the distances prescribed in 314.28 apply any time the same conductor enters and leaves the wireway.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your follow up on this, I do like your way of thinking.
 
ESLLC said:
Are there any thoughts how we would need to modify this installation for it to be defined as an auxiliary gutter?
In my mind we have it installed as such.
Click to expand...
jim dungar said:
Maybe
Remove the bottom plate of the panel. Cut and gasket an equivalent size opening in the wireway top. Fabricate a skirt to cover the gap between the enclosures (the panel manufacturer may even have a standard part even though it is not on their webpage.
Click to expand...
I like this idea. If there's no factory parts to available a good sheet metal shop could work something out.
 
I'm late to this conversation but the rules in 366 and 376 don't require the wireway dimensions to meet the 8x rule if the distance between each pair of conduit entries enclosing the same conductors meets that rule. So it may be possible to make the installation compliant by crisscrossing the conductors from bottom to top, between entries that are 20" apart on the diagnol. Although I can't tell from here if there's a suitable combination of top and bottom entries that supplies pairs that are 20" apart for all entries.

The rule is the same in both articles so trying to turn it from a wireway into auxiliary gutter doesn't help. (I'm not sure why we even need two articles, the content is largely the same verbatim. )
 
What a ridiculous argument by that AHJ. Like Don's proposal says, that rule is for when using a chunk of wireway instead of a conduit body to ease in pulling conductors based on distance or complying with the 360 degree rule, i.e. to make the installation of conductors easier and to prevent damage to insulation. When using a wireway to consolidate raceways to install into electrical equipment, that is an entirely different purpose. When using a wireway as a pull point in the middle of a raceway, then yes, it should comply with the rules in 314. When you are going from a raceway through a nipple that is less than 18" long (i.e. not subject to derating), then the intended use is not to facilitate pulling conductors, it is to facilitate neatly arranging conductors to enter electrical equipment. Completely different purposes, different intent, and different installation practice. The wireway even has a rating for the largest sized conductor allowed to be installed, for Pete's sake. To say that this standard practice is non-compliant, even though there are millions of such installations, and to make it near impossible to install panelboards where the highest overcurrent protection device is less than 6'8" from the floor is absolutely ludicrous, baseless, and showing a complete lack of critical thinking skills or common sense.
 
i am EXTREMELY late to this discussion, but curious, if you were to cut all of the conductors inside the wireway and splice new conductors from those cut ends to the panelboard terminations, would they approve the installation under those conditions??? if so, that seems a lot easier than pulling panels, removing wireway and installing flex conduit.
 
rlqdot said:
i am EXTREMELY late to this discussion, but curious, if you were to cut all of the conductors inside the wireway and splice new conductors from those cut ends to the panelboard terminations, would they approve the installation under those conditions??? if so, that seems a lot easier than pulling panels, removing wireway and installing flex conduit.
Click to expand...
We have considered that option, it makes a lot of sense.
I've asked the question about removing the bottom of each panel, cutting the same size and shape (8.5" x 24") opening on the gutter top and then simply setting the panels directly onto the gutter. I'm curious to know if the gutter would then be considered a gutter instead of a pull box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top