110.26(c)(3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

chris kennedy

Senior Member
Location
Miami Fla.
Occupation
60 yr old tool twisting electrician
cowboyjwc said:
I don't believe so. I didn't read the section, but I believe it says 24" clear space. A 2/0 door will not give you that.

Thats how I read it and a 2/0 door gives you about 23". Time to send an RFI to the architect.

Thanks John.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
chris kennedy said:
Thats how I read it and a 2/0 door gives you about 23". Time to send an RFI to the architect.

Thanks John.

No problem.:smile:

They do make a type of hinge where the door will swing all the way back to the wall, but I'm not sure what the jamb clearance would be. And while I may not be correct I believe that the minimum door width per the building code is a 3/0.
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
Not so fast. Is the equipment more than 6 feet wide?

Note to readers: Since we are talking about 110.26(c)(3), we must also be talking about 2008 requirements.
 

chris kennedy

Senior Member
Location
Miami Fla.
Occupation
60 yr old tool twisting electrician
charlie b said:
Not so fast. Is the equipment more than 6 feet wide?

Note to readers: Since we are talking about 110.26(c)(3), we must also be talking about 2008 requirements.
Sorry that was off the top of my head. I'm looking at the 05 now which is what the permit is issued on.

The install looks like it does not meet 110.26(C)(2)(a) or 110.26(C)(2)(b).
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
Sorry too. All of my responses are based on the 2005. I don't even have a copy of the 2008.

And in case anyone has noticed I get confused easy enough with out trying to answer questions out of one book and inspect out of the other (actually the last two).:grin:
 

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
chris kennedy said:
The install looks like it does not meet 110.26(C)(2)(a) or 110.26(C)(2)(b).
I could use a clearer description of the physical situation and of the code issue. The "six feet wide" aspect of the rule was removed in the 2005 NEC, and a similar (but not identical) version of a "six feet wide" rule was added in the 2008 NEC. But the 2008 added words that either clarified or clouded (you decide for yourself) a tricky part of the working space rules.

The "working space" itself is a box at least 30 inches wide, 36 inches deep, and 6.5 feet high. In the 2005 version, 110.26(C) requires at least one, and perhaps two, entrances to the "working space." That is different than requiring at least one, and perhaps two, entrances to the room in which the equipment is located. Based on the words that appear in the 2005 version, if I have only one door to the room, and if that door is a nominal 2 foot wide (actual 23.5 inches within the frame), and if there is a 1200 amp board in the room, and if there is working space in front of that board, and if after I walk through the only door I have to walk another 2 feet before I get to the working space, and if I can enter the working space from the left side and have 36 inches (i.e., more than 24) of access room (with the board on my left and lots of room on my right), and if I can instead enter the working space from the right side and have 36 inches (i.e., more than 24) of access room (with the board on my right and lots of room on my left), then I would be willing to ignore the single door and declare that I have TWO entrances, each at least 24 inches wide, TO THE WORKING SPACE.

I would, of course, never tell that to an architect. ;) I want the architect to give me two doors to the room, with each door opening outwards.

In the 2008 version, there are words about a door that is intended to be an entrance to the working space and that is located within 25 feet of the working space. So my previous paragraph could no longer be defended. That is OK by me, because I would never design a space on the basis of that argument. I was merely pointing out my interpretation of the words, as written, in the 2005 version.
 
Last edited:

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
charlie b said:
I could use a clearer description of the physical situation and of the code issue. The "six feet wide" aspect of the rule was removed in the 2005 NEC, and a similar (but not identical) version of a "six feet wide" rule was added in the 2008 NEC. But the 2008 added words that either clarified or clouded (you decide for yourself) a tricky part of the working space rules.

The "working space" itself is a box at least 30 inches wide, 36 inches deep, and 6.5 feet high. In the 2005 version, 110.26(C) requires at least one, and perhaps two, entrances to the "working space." That is different than requiring at least one, and perhaps two, entrances to the room in which the equipment is located. Based on the words that appear in the 2005 version, if I have only one door to the room, and if that door is a nominal 2 foot wide (actual 23.5 inches within the frame), and if there is a 1200 amp board in the room, and if there is working space in front of that board, and if after I walk through the only door I have to walk another 2 feet before I get to the working space, and if I can enter the working space from the left side and have 36 inches (i.e., more than 24) of access room (with the board on my left and lots of room on my right), and if I can instead enter the working space from the right side and have 36 inches (i.e., more than 24) of access room (with the board on my right and lots of room on my left), then I would be willing to ignore the single door and declare that I have TWO entrances, each at least 24 inches wide, TO THE WORKING SPACE.

I would, of course, never tell that to an architect. ;) I want the architect to give me two doors to the room, with each door opening outwards.

In the 2008 version, there are words about a door that is intended to be an entrance to the working space and that is located within 25 feet of the working space. So my previous paragraph could no longer be defended. That is OK by me, because I would never design a space on the basis of that argument. I was merely pointing out my interpretation of the words, as written, in the 2005 version.

I would agree with what you said and I would also agree that I would never let on that I didn't want two doors into the "room" and not just the "working Space".:smile: I will also say that I never had any problems with it as no one ever tried to build it as it reads.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top