"cords" above ceilings

Status
Not open for further replies.

ryan_618

Senior Member
This is a topic that has been beat to death, however, I think I may have something new to bring to the argument. The question is: Can I have a TV with a its "cord" or (for example) a projector with its "cord" above the suspended ceiling?
400.8 says that flexible cords can't be used above a suspended ceiling. Before we get their, the scope of Article 400 states that it applies to "flexible cords and flexible cables."
Annex A in the Code refers to two different listing standards that I think are often mistaken with each other. UL 62 covers flexible cords and flexible cables. UL 817 covers cord sets and power supply cords. We can agree that Article 400 applies only to those covered by UL 62, which covers flexible cords.
Here is the scope of each of these standards:

Scope of 62:
"1.1 These requirements cover fixture wires, hoistway cables, and flexible cords for use in accordance with
the National Electrical Code.
1.2 An elevator cable that contains one or more optical-fiber members is limited (see 8.6) to carrying
optical energy that has been ruled not hazardous to the human body.
1.3 These requirements do not cover armored cords or assemblies of flexible cords or fixture wires with
fittings or wiring devices of any sort
(such as cord sets, power-supply cords, and Christmas-tree and
decorative-lighting outfits, which are covered in requirements separate from this standard) nor do these
requirements cover any type of wire or cord for use at a potential higher than 600 V."

The "cords" found on a tv, router, projector, or similiar equipment is not a flexible cord, per this scope.

Scope of 817:
"1.1 These requirements cover power-supply cords for use as supply connections for appliances in
accordance with the National Electrical Code.
1.2 These requirements also cover cord sets for use in extending a branch circuit supply to the
power-supply cord of a portable appliance by means of flexible cord in accordance with the National
Electrical Code."



Because these cords are, in fact, power supply cords, and are not flexible cords, the installation of these cords above a suspended ceiling is permitted.

Any thoughts?
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
I see where you're going, but I might be hard pressed to agree with you.

Now to justify my answer, I don't like playing word games, but at the same time, "intent" is not the same as "what is written". So my thought would be, that a flexible cord is a flexible cord no matter what you call it and that was probably the intent, not thinking that anyone would dig that deep.
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
I see where you're going, but I might be hard pressed to agree with you.

Now to justify my answer, I don't like playing word games, but at the same time, "intent" is not the same as "what is written". So my thought would be, that a flexible cord is a flexible cord no matter what you call it and that was probably the intent, not thinking that anyone would dig that deep.

Another factor may be what type of conductors are used. A power cord can use the same wire type as a flexible cord, and to that extent might be covered in any sections that refer to wire type rather than to usage (plenum and non-plenum air return space rules for example.)
 

ryan_618

Senior Member
I see where you're going, but I might be hard pressed to agree with you.

Now to justify my answer, I don't like playing word games, but at the same time, "intent" is not the same as "what is written". So my thought would be, that a flexible cord is a flexible cord no matter what you call it and that was probably the intent, not thinking that anyone would dig that deep.

I would win that court battle in a second.
 

ryan_618

Senior Member
Another factor may be what type of conductors are used. A power cord can use the same wire type as a flexible cord, and to that extent might be covered in any sections that refer to wire type rather than to usage (plenum and non-plenum air return space rules for example.)

I don't think it can if it has a fitting (male or female), because, according to the standard, it is no longer a flexible cord.
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
I don't think it can if it has a fitting (male or female), because, according to the standard, it is no longer a flexible cord.
Good point. The receptacle is installed by an electrician, who may or may not have advance knowledge of what the owner intends to do with it.
A slightly different set of rules applies to the actions of the owner when a device is installed later. If the output of the device (l
Looks like you have managed to activate the discussion again! :)
 

GoldDigger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Placerville, CA, USA
Occupation
Retired PV System Designer
Looking at the language of 400.13, it certainly appears that the code is deliberately extending the meaning of flexible cord in this section to include "power cords", since otherwise some of the exception language would not be necessary.

400.13 Overcurrent Protection. Flexible cords not smaller than 18 AWG, and tinsel cords or cords having equivalent characteristics of smaller size approved for use with specific appliances, shall be considered as protected against overcurrent in accordance with 240.5.

It might take some research into the commentary when the various sections were adopted to get a better idea of what was intended, even though those commentaries are not normative.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
Looking at the language of 400.13, it certainly appears that the code is deliberately extending the meaning of flexible cord in this section to include "power cords", since otherwise some of the exception language would not be necessary.



It might take some research into the commentary when the various sections were adopted to get a better idea of what was intended, even though those commentaries are not normative.

I was thinking the same thing about the commentary. I don't happen to have them so I couldn't look it up. I'm gonna look and see what the handbook says. Doesn't really say much.
 
Flexible Cords [UL 62] per Article 400 is not a listed Power Supply Cord [UL817]

Flexible Cords [UL 62] per Article 400 is not a listed Power Supply Cord [UL817]

Let's just simply follow the Code, Article 400 applies to 'flexible cords and flexible cables' as listed in Table 400.4, which are constructed per UL 62. The rules in Article 400 only apply to 'flexible cords and flexible cables,' they don't apply to 'power supply cords' since power supply cords are constructed per UL 817 and this projduct doesn't fall within the scope of the article or the NEC.
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
This is a topic that has been beat to death, however, I think I may have something new to bring to the argument. The question is: Can I have a TV with a its "cord" or (for example) a projector with its "cord" above the suspended ceiling?
400.8 says that flexible cords can't be used above a suspended ceiling. Before we get their, the scope of Article 400 states that it applies to "flexible cords and flexible cables."
Annex A in the Code refers to two different listing standards that I think are often mistaken with each other. UL 62 covers flexible cords and flexible cables. UL 817 covers cord sets and power supply cords. We can agree that Article 400 applies only to those covered by UL 62, which covers flexible cords.
Here is the scope of each of these standards:

Scope of 62:
"1.1 These requirements cover fixture wires, hoistway cables, and flexible cords for use in accordance with
the National Electrical Code.
1.2 An elevator cable that contains one or more optical-fiber members is limited (see 8.6) to carrying
optical energy that has been ruled not hazardous to the human body.
1.3 These requirements do not cover armored cords or assemblies of flexible cords or fixture wires with
fittings or wiring devices of any sort
(such as cord sets, power-supply cords, and Christmas-tree and
decorative-lighting outfits, which are covered in requirements separate from this standard) nor do these
requirements cover any type of wire or cord for use at a potential higher than 600 V."

The "cords" found on a tv, router, projector, or similiar equipment is not a flexible cord, per this scope.

Scope of 817:
"1.1 These requirements cover power-supply cords for use as supply connections for appliances in
accordance with the National Electrical Code.
1.2 These requirements also cover cord sets for use in extending a branch circuit supply to the
power-supply cord of a portable appliance by means of flexible cord in accordance with the National
Electrical Code."



Because these cords are, in fact, power supply cords, and are not flexible cords, the installation of these cords above a suspended ceiling is permitted.

Any thoughts?

Based on the scopes quoted, I think your reasoning is sound. I'm certain that this is a can of worms you probably don't want to open, due to the scale of proposal-writing you'd have to do to correct the casual use of the term "flexible cord" in the NEC.

Following the code...

100 - Attachment Plug (Plug Cap) (Plug). A device that, by insertion in a receptacle, establishes a connection between the conductors of the attached flexible cord and the conductors connected permanently to the receptacle.

This is a paradox, because as soon as there is a fitting (the plug cap) on the flexible cord it is no longer a flexible cord, but a power-supply cord.

210.50(B) Cord Connections. A receptacle outlet shall be installed wherever flexible cords with attachment plugs are used. Where flexible cords are permitted to be permanently connected, receptacles shall be permitted to be omitted for such cords.

Ditto.

240.4 Protection of Conductors. Conductors, other than flexible cords, flexible cables, and fixture wires, shall be protected against overcurrent in accordance with their ampacities specified in 310.15, unless otherwise permitted or required in 240.4(A) through (G).

While not a paradox, it begs the question as to whether I can connect a 14 AWG power-supply cord into a 20A branch circuit.

240.5(B)(1)

This is describing power-supply cords, yet references flexible cords in the text, which returns us to looking to 240.4 for instruction on how to supply a power-supply cord.

240.5(B)(3), 240.5(B)(4), 250.138(A), 314.23(H)(1), 400.7(B), 400.10, 400.13, 400.24, 410.59, 410.59(C)#3, 410.62, 410.62(C)(2) ...

More paradoxes.

The more I think about it, the easier proposal to mend the problem to meet the apparent intent is to add a definition for flexible cord that brings both UL 62 and 817 under the same term in Article 100. There's no good reason to discriminate between one or the other, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Ponchik

Senior Member
Location
CA
Occupation
Electronologist
Agree with what Ryan has posted as to the distinction of the two cords.
But Lets take a step back.
Why flexible cords are not allowed in the suspended ceiling location?
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
Thankyou, Ryan, for the OP. It is great to get some of the UL Standards text that is commonly buttressed behind an outrageous financial barrier. I find the differences in the scopes of UL 62 and 817 to be insightful.

The more I think about it, the easier proposal to mend the problem to meet the apparent intent is to add a definition for flexible cord that brings both UL 62 and 817 under the same term in Article 100. There's no good reason to discriminate between one or the other, IMO.
Your cafeful citing of the passages that might be affected is also insightful, George.

It occurs to me that the very existance of two distinct UL standards, i.e. UL 62 and UL 817, governing a "thing" (some STP cord with a molded male plug on one end, for example) is prima facie evidence that there IS an intended distiction. I submit that the distinction is wholly consistant with other ways that the Code uses to point to where it governs and what is beyond the boundaries of the Code.

I'm thinking, in particular, of the Ariticle 100 Definitions of Outlet and Premises Wiring (System), and how the two definitions help us, as assemblers of things NEC related, to contain our expertise and zeal to a defined playground. As an example, I, as the installing electrician, when connecting an oven that is manufacturered with its power supply conductors within a flexible metal whip, am not required to field alter the gage of the manufacturer's supply conductors, because, as Premises Wiring (System) tells me, the conductors are part of the appliance, and that the boundary of the NEC ends at the "outlet" which is the wirenutted connection of the oven whip conductors to the branch circuit conductors in the junction box.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
It occurs to me that the very existance of two distinct UL standards, i.e. UL 62 and UL 817, governing a "thing" (some STP cord with a molded male plug on one end, for example) is prima facie evidence that there IS an intended distiction.


But is it up to UL to make this distinction?



I'm thinking, in particular, of the Ariticle 100 Definitions of Outlet and Premises Wiring (System), and how the two definitions help us, as assemblers of things NEC related, to contain our expertise and zeal to a defined playground. As an example, I, as the installing electrician, when connecting an oven that is manufacturered with its power supply conductors within a flexible metal whip, am not required to field alter the gage of the manufacturer's supply conductors, because, as Premises Wiring (System) tells me, the conductors are part of the appliance, and that the boundary of the NEC ends at the "outlet" which is the wirenutted connection of the oven whip conductors to the branch circuit conductors in the junction box.

So even if the NFPA thinks there are good reasons to keep cords out of certain areas UL listing can override that?
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
But is it up to UL to make this distinction?

So even if the NFPA thinks there are good reasons to keep cords out of certain areas UL listing can override that?
Ahhh. That becomes the point. . . what the NFPA "thinks".

Instead of defining the new Article 100 term "flexible cord" to extend the NEC into the purview of UL Standards, I think the opposite needs to happen. I think the NEC should, in fact, be clarified to support the distinction already in place as Ryan points to with his citations from UL 62 and UL 817.

The "playground boundary" for the application of NEC 400.7 and 400.8 is ill defined, IMO. A new Article 100 definition to help establish the boundary is in order.
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
As a case in point for better defining the "playground boundary" for the application of 400.7 and 400.8, take a close look at the new addition to the 2011 NEC 400.7(B) highlighted in bold underlined italics red:
2011 NEC 400.7

(B) Attachment Plugs.
Where used as permitted in 400.7(A)(3), (A)(6), and (A)(8), each flexible cord shall be equipped with an attachment plug and shall be energized from a receptacle or cord connector body.
Prior to 2011 this was the passage used to outlaw extension cords, however, the new addition helps to clarify that outlawing as being "outside the playground boundary".

Scope of 62:
"1.1 These requirements cover fixture wires, hoistway cables, and flexible cords for use in accordance with
the National Electrical Code.
1.2 An elevator cable that contains one or more optical-fiber members is limited (see 8.6) to carrying
optical energy that has been ruled not hazardous to the human body.
1.3 These requirements do not cover armored cords or assemblies of flexible cords or fixture wires with
fittings or wiring devices of any sort
(such as cord sets, power-supply cords, and Christmas-tree and
decorative-lighting outfits, which are covered in requirements separate from this standard) nor do these
requirements cover any type of wire or cord for use at a potential higher than 600 V."

The "cords" found on a tv, router, projector, or similiar equipment is not a flexible cord, per this scope.

Scope of 817:
"1.1 These requirements cover power-supply cords for use as supply connections for appliances in
accordance with the National Electrical Code.
1.2
These requirements also cover cord sets for use in extending a branch circuit supply to the
power-supply cord of a portable appliance by means of flexible cord
in accordance with the National
Electrical Code."
I take the green highlight in Ryan's citations from the UL Standards to be describing "extension cords".

I submit that the NFPA change to 400.7(B) is wholly consistant with reigning in the occasional over-reach of an AHJ, et. al., in applying 400.7 and 400.8 to assemblies of Premises Wiring (System)s and attached loads manufactured under UL Standards.
 

ryan_618

Senior Member
This whole thing came about by Mike Holt calling me on the phone yesterday. He calls and asks me if you can put a cord above a ceiling. As soon as I realized that he was asking me a simple question, I knew it was going to get weird. He was the one that brought the whole thing up, and I'll be honest, once we looked more into it, we were both paralyzed in thought, realizing that we had been wrong (in my case for about ten years, in his for about 30)! I'm going to try to make some proposals for 2017, but I'm not quite sure what to submit yet.
The only thing that I'm certain of is that the more I learn about Article 400, the more I think a lot of it is smoke and mirrors.
 

ryan_618

Senior Member
One more thought...I told someone with Panel 6 about this, and they were totally speechless, much like I was after talking with Mike. CMP-6 discussed for hours this cycle about putting this type of equipment above a ceiling (and there will be a new exception in 2014 for it), but none of them realized that this equipment doesn't really fall within the scope of the article anyway. I talked with another person (whom most of you would recognize by name) that is with UL and is on the TCC, he was also stunned, and thinks that major changes need to be made to 400 in the next cycle.
This whole thing is still sort of blowing my mind, as I couldn't tell you how many time I have written this up as a violation.
 

al hildenbrand

Senior Member
Location
Minnesota
Occupation
Electrical Contractor, Electrical Consultant, Electrical Engineer
One of the trickier parts of the puzzle, to me, will be crafting changes of the NEC that will support the use of detachable power supply cords that are included as part of the manufactured appliance. I'm thinking of the common electronics cord with a NEMA 15 plug on one end and a female EIC C13 cap on the other designed to insert into a male inlet on the body of the appliance. Think of the cord that is on the back of your flat screen or the old CRT monitor or the desk top computer.

41cDN8FKzvL.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top