4x4 square JB fill calcs with devices stuffed inside - code article?

[lakee911]

Good morning,

I ran into the following in the field the other day.



I don't think it's correct, but I'm not sure what code article this violates. I had trouble getting the cover back on the left box and I think its overfilled.

Thanks,
Jason

 

[barclayd]

Article 314.16 covers box fill. That looks like fire alarm - Article 760.
Does look a little tight.
How come you were taking covers off of stuff?
db

 

[lakee911]

Working on the job punch list ... found all kinds of stuff that Contractor 'forgot' to do. I wish I had taken more covers off to inspect.

I looked through 760 but I couldn't find anything applicable there.

Article 314.16 does cover box fill, but the applicable section would be 314.16(B)(4) and that starts off, "For each yoke or strap containing one more devices or equipment..." and these "devices" do not have yokes or straps, so I'm not sure how to count them.

I'd like to think that maybe we could consider these a panel instead and 40% cross section would be required.

Thoughts?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

It looks like there is ample room. You would have to do a calculation to know for sure.

 

[iwire]

I don't see any problem.

IMO that device does not count toward box fill even if logic tells us it should.

 

[lakee911]

I don't see any problem.

IMO that device does not count toward box fill even if logic tells us it should.

Boo ...

Ok, thanks.

 

[sameguy]

look good to me

 

[qcroanoke]

I don't see any problem.

IMO that device does not count toward box fill even if logic tells us it should.

Sorta like equipment grounds, they defy the law of physics too. You can have 10 in there but it only counts as 1.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I would probably calculate the units cu. in. or at least add 2 as they do for a device.

 

[iwire]

It looks like a 4x4x21/8" box so that means it is good for

13 - 12 AWGs

or

15 - 14 AWGs

or

17 - 16 AWGs

or

20 - 18 AWGs

I think it is either 14 or 16 AWG in the box, I doubt we are close to being full.

 

[rich000]

I have a question, are you looking for items to get the contractor back in to fix or are you fixing?

If a code violation does not get them back, you may be able to get them back under a "workmanship" clause in the specifications.

If you are fixing, just add an extension ring and paint it red and be done with it. May save the papaerwork hassle.

 

[iwire]

If a code violation does not get them back, you may be able to get them back under a "workmanship" clause in the specifications.

If someone tried to do that to my job I would fight them tooth and nail over it.

 

[rich000]

If someone tried to do that to my job I would fight them tooth and nail over it.

Yes, but you would have not wired it this way! I hope!

 

[iwire]

Yes, but you would have not wired it this way! I hope!

I am sure I would have.

What else would you do with these addressable modules?

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I don't see the issue with this either.

 

[vanvan]

I almost cringed when i saw that pic and thought to myself that someone had taken a snapshot of something i just did! Surely I was going to get ripped for such work. Glad to hear that some of us agree that it is really the way to do it. Though snug, it works. FA devices, pam relays, etc., are always a bear to deal with!