Search:

Type: Posts; User: rbalex

Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.03 seconds.

  1. Replies
    7$$
    Views
    406

    Sorry for my tardy reply. This is from the IEEE...

    Sorry for my tardy reply. This is from the IEEE Std 100 - 1996 edition:

    I have always treated the vaults you described as "manholes" in my refinery experience.
  2. Replies
    2$$
    Views
    233

    First, in Canada, you are most likely dealing...

    First, in Canada, you are most likely dealing with Zones rather than Divisions.

    Second, Class I equipment is not automatically rated for Class II [See NEC Section 502.5 for example.]

    Third, an...
  3. Replies
    5$$
    Views
    532

    That's fine - remember the rules are only...

    That's fine - remember the rules are only similar, not identical.
  4. Replies
    5$$
    Views
    532

    I understand your concern - so you can either...

    I understand your concern - so you can either trust me and basically treat NI for Class I, Division 2 as you would IS for Division 1 which gets a whole Article for itself in Article 504 OR you can...
  5. Replies
    5$$
    Views
    532

    I believe your answer is in Section 501.10(B)(3)....

    I believe your answer is in Section 501.10(B)(3).

    Basically, a nonincendive system in Class I, Division 2 can be installed as if it were in an unclassified location. The additional relevant...
  6. Replies
    10$$
    Views
    626

    As kwired mentioned XLPE is available in several...

    As kwired mentioned XLPE is available in several constructions, so is EPR (ethylene propylene rubber). I personally prefer XHHW-2.
  7. Replies
    10$$
    Views
    626

    SIS is very flexible - and soft - and not...

    SIS is very flexible - and soft - and not generally suitable for pulling through a raceway.
  8. Replies
    10$$
    Views
    626

    Not in and of itself. That is a determination of...

    Not in and of itself. That is a determination of the NRTL.
  9. Replies
    10$$
    Views
    626

    See Table 310.104(A). It is possible the wire is...

    See Table 310.104(A). It is possible the wire is multi-labeled, but if it is SIS only, it is for switchboards and switchgear only.
  10. Replies
    1$$
    Views
    305

    There are several other manufacturer/fabricators...

    There are several other manufacturer/fabricators here that are better suited to answer this question. While I have certainly required vendors to obtain NRTL certification, I don't tell them or the...
  11. Thread: C1D1GC

    by rbalex
    Replies
    5$$
    Views
    532

    I was just saying most "standard" RMC [Article...

    I was just saying most "standard" RMC [Article 344] unions (not Erickson types) are already suitable for Class I, Division 1. Of course, replacing them is still OK.

    I'm sorry I didn't mention it...
  12. Thread: C1D1GC

    by rbalex
    Replies
    5$$
    Views
    532

    If I understand your solution correctly, the only...

    If I understand your solution correctly, the only thing else you need to consider is a boundary seal somewhere. [Section 501.15(A)(4)] The existing union may also already be suitable.
  13. Replies
    1$$
    Views
    475

    Question 1. No. There is no benefit sealing a...

    Question 1. No. There is no benefit sealing a non-explosionproof enclosure. See Section 501.15(B)(1). The key word is required.

    Question 2. If the device is suitable for Division 2, see Section...
  14. Replies
    2$$
    Views
    488

    Possibly. The heater itself may actually mitigate...

    Possibly. The heater itself may actually mitigate the classification, but the piping to the heater may also affect the classification. In fact, it might require a Division 1 classification. Hard to...
  15. Thread: C1D1GC

    by rbalex
    Replies
    5$$
    Views
    532

    You have some serious issues beginning with...

    You have some serious issues beginning with Section 501.10(A)(3). Hint: No arching devices in the conduit run is pretty much irrelevant for non-IS Class I, Division 1. Check Section 501.10(A)(1) as...
  16. Thread: Class 1 Div 2?

    by rbalex
    Replies
    6$$
    Views
    910

    If I were to do the electrical area...

    If I were to do the electrical area classification around this process, I would require a great deal more than this. I would probably spend a day interviewing the process, mechanical, and piping...
  17. Thread: Class 1 Div 2?

    by rbalex
    Replies
    6$$
    Views
    910

    In that case, proper electrical area...

    In that case, proper electrical area classification will depend on other factors such as piping and mechanical construction, ventilation, possible fugitive emissions, etc. It is still possible that...
  18. Thread: Class 1 Div 2?

    by rbalex
    Replies
    6$$
    Views
    910

    Are the solvents being handled above their flash...

    Are the solvents being handled above their flash points at some point in the process? If not, there is no concern.
  19. Replies
    1$$
    Views
    317

    Boxes and Fittings: see Section 501.10(B)(4)....

    Boxes and Fittings: see Section 501.10(B)(4). They don't necessarily have to be explosionproof but still need to be appropriate for the "weather".
    LFMC: see Sections 501.10(B)(2) and 501.30,...
  20. Replies
    3$$
    Views
    408

    This is a good point; however, technically, if it...

    This is a good point; however, technically, if it isn't listed, it isn't LFMC either. See Section 350.6. Various forms of trade named "Sealtight", "Sealtite", "Seal-tite", "Liquid tight" etc....
  21. Replies
    8$$
    Views
    453

    Depending on the piping and ventilation, I might...

    Depending on the piping and ventilation, I might not have classified the room at all; however, your reasoning is sufficiently conservative with no serious fiscal effect, so I would endorse it as your...
  22. Replies
    8$$
    Views
    453

    It's not an NEC rule as such. Several reference...

    It's not an NEC rule as such. Several reference standards listed in 500.4(B), like NFPA 497 or API RP500, indicate 18" or 24" above grade or finished floor in various applications. Articles 511 to...
  23. Replies
    8$$
    Views
    453

    Not unless the documentation [Section 500.4(A)]...

    Not unless the documentation [Section 500.4(A)] indicates that it is not Division 2 above 18". However, transformers in Division 2 are only required to meet Sections 450.21 through 450.27, which they...
  24. Replies
    1$$
    Views
    660

    Canada has adopted IEC "whole hog" since the late...

    Canada has adopted IEC "whole hog" since the late '90s. As such, terminals must be "Ex e". The box must also qualify ("marked") for Zone 2 (although it doesn't take much to do so.) I no longer have...
  25. Thread: NEC 500.7(K)

    by rbalex
    Replies
    7$$
    Views
    968

    API RP500 Section 6.5.1 contains clear...

    API RP500 Section 6.5.1 contains clear applications for NEC Sections 500.7(K)(1)or(2). (For which it was originally written in the first place) Note, however, RP500 is a recommended practice, not a...
Results 1 to 25 of 200
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4