Code Compliant Cable Tray?

[CAM]

I guess you got us then, we did not step up, or is it that you have not read the responses?

From Jim

No, I showed definitively that the literature posted (linked) from B-Line supports my point. The B-Line part used only where the tray is cut/bent is *not* UL. The other parts are for splicing factory ends to factory ends and *are* UL.

I am waiting for someone (anyone) to come up with a shred of evidence that the modification in my photos (which is in *almost* every basket tray maker's catalog) can pass UL.

 

[CAM]

Not at all, I also don't see bonding around plumbing fittings as being a band-aid fix.
Roger

Tray can be mechanically discontinuous. If, instead of the crazy cut/bent nonsense you simply stopped mechanically and restarted where the obstacle ended then you would be fine as long as the span was no more than 60" and you were electrically continuous with the correct size bonding jumper.

Depends on where you are, in NC all electrical items must be listed so heck, this might end up not being an issue in any capacity here in NC, it may be outlawed altogether, see NC GS 66-25
Roger

This is true in most jurisdictions or at least most I have encountered. And thus, the modification of a product so as to negate the label makes the installation of that produce a violation.

I'll look into NC. I know in Washington DC, Baltimore, and Atlanta the AHJ's have said no to what the photos depict.

 

[CAM]

Well, the problem is, until someone agrees with you, you will not listen to any reasonable counterpoint to your's, so why should anyone bother?
Roger

False. The only "reasonable counterpoint" was yours where you admitted putting a band-aid over the cut (gutted) section. Electrically that is the bare minimum that *could* be safe and instead of cheering for a half-solution I choose to push the full solution. The bonding jumper doesn't get you past the fact that you cut the guts out of a UL labeled part. The full solution - not gutting the part because there is no good reason to do it - is infinitely preferable.

Now, why haven't you answered the following direct questions?
Roger

False. I have answered all. Read my posts. I have no hidden agendas nor do I disguise who I am. As for whether I can document that anybody has died as a result of this ... well ... should I wait until the house has burned down before I tell somebody not to play with matches next to gasoline storage? It is ridiculous that I am attacked for advocating not modifying an EGC. It is common knowledge that EGC's are one of the least understood and most common installation problems in the trade. There are hundreds of posts on the subject and yet where I say "don't cut up your tray, don't modify your EGC (whether used as EGC or not), don't void your UL label," I get seven pages of argument about how it's really okay since today the thing is used mostly for LV cable.

There are more in this thread you haven't answered as well? Then you take cheap shots at demeaning the members here in your post # 40 taking the position that unless they work in some large commercial or industrial capacity they are wasting your time. I would say you would be praising these same people if even one came forward to back your position.
Roger

I demeaned nobody with that post. If I have a prostate problem I don't go to a heart specialist. I am sure there are many excellent residential guys and guys who wire John Deere dealerships in farm country who post here. But I don't need their opinion as market research for a product used exclusively in commercial jobs where there are 500+ seats in the building. Likewise, I haven't praised anybody. I'm not handing out gold stars for electrical safety. I am a canary in the coal mine on this issue and see it as one of the many ways the French have ******'ed us over the years.

 

[CAM]

OK point taken, but not all tray is suitable for grounding.

True. There is fiberglass tray which does not need to be grounded.

And then there is metallic tray:

392.7 Grounding.
(A) Metallic Cable Trays. Metallic cable trays that support electrical conductors shall be grounded as required for conductor enclosures in accordance with 250.96 and Part IV of Article 250.

 

[ty]

And what most here are doing is saying, "Okay, let's have two *classes* of cable tray. One will be legacy type for line voltage and one will be basket which *can* be used for line voltage if installed correctly but will be mainly for LV and there it doesn't matter so much how it's installed."

Sounds Good.

 

[CAM]

If the tray is not an EGC, the UL label is meaningless.

Instead of trying to argue that point, I will only challenge you to get an engineer to specify a non-UL labeled tray. Or get an inspector to pass a non-UL labeled tray.

Are non-UL trays sold? Certainly. Look in any basket tray catalog and you will see 2"x4" and smaller trays. Those products do not have enough metal in them to pass the UL tests as EGC. Therefore they are not labeled and yet people do buy them. I would, however, suggest that from what I've seen they are sold in places where inspection will not be an issue (ie no permit pulled).

 

[mivey]

CAM,

Has your company geared up to push a product based on the premise that the other products are violating code and your new product is the one that will fix the problem?

Are there other manufacturer's products that will "fix" this problem other than the one your company provides?

Generic answer only as if this turns into a product spam, the post will get killed, as it should.

I'm just trying to understand the source of your enthusiasm in your posts.

FWIW: While I appreciate your conviction, I don't agree with your premise.

 

[CAM]

Are there other manufacturer's products that will "fix" this problem other than the one your company provides?

In an earlier post I included photos of five different manufacturers' products that will obviate any need to modify UL labeled parts in a manner that would necessarily void the label (ie removal of so much metal that the label is incorrect). There may be others. So no, this is not just me nor just my company - it is really a question of following NEC to the letter or just adopting foreign tradecraft without regard for the Code. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing by way of patent or anything else that prevents anyone from doing it correctly.

Lastly, I personally believe there should be two classes of support structure (cable tray or otherwise) as I mentioned earlier. There are several great products out there for supporting LV cabling that cannot get UL labeled and therefore are not used on large jobs. Contractors have to buy much heavier product than needed.

But the solution to this is changing the Code and there is a process for that purpose. The solution is not to ignore the Code and hope not to get caught.

 

[roger]

it is really a question of following NEC to the letter or just adopting foreign tradecraft without regard for the Code.

Once again, as you have been shown, NEC 110.3(B) is the code that would need to be followed for those manufactures that include in their instruction how to make field modifications

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing by way of patent or anything else that prevents anyone from doing it correctly.

I agree and if the instructions are followed all is well.

But the solution to this is changing the Code and there is a process for that purpose.

So that has been your issue all along? Look at the back of the NEC, there are proposal forms you can use although you will have to wait for the 2011 cycle to make a 2014 proposal.

The solution is not to ignore the Code and hope not to get caught.

Where did anybody say it was, remember to quote accurately.

Roger

 

[CAM]

Once again, as you have been shown, NEC 110.3(B) is the code that would need to be followed for those manufactures that include in their instruction how to make field modifications I agree and if the instructions are followed all is well.
Roger

You have NOT been paying attention at ALL. NO manufacturer claims (to my knowledge and I live in this space) that their sweeps or elevations where longitudinal wires are cut meet UL requirements. None.

But you say it's okay if there are instructions for it in their catalog?

So that has been your issue all along? Look at the back of the NEC, there are proposal forms you can use although you will have to wait for the 2011 cycle to make a 2014 proposal.
Roger

I lack the motivation or resources to push for change to NEC. Instead I simply do what it says today. I do still think there is a place for a LV class of tray just as there is a place for nonconductive (fiberglass) tray. Somebody wanted to sell fiberglass and they did the work necessary to make it legal. If somebody wants to sell special tray for LV then they should do the work necessary not just foist it off on "ignorant Americans" while sporting a fancy French smirk.

Where did anybody say it was, remember to quote accurately.
Roger

What are you talking about?

 

[iwire]

Instead of trying to argue that point, I will only challenge you to get an engineer to specify a non-UL labeled tray. Or get an inspector to pass a non-UL labeled tray.

Inspector pass unlisted equipment all the time, it is their choice if a listing is not directly required by the NEC.

Motors for ordinary locations are not listed, uni-strut is not listed etc.

The solution is not to ignore the Code and hope not to get caught.

Like Roger I would like to see where anyone in this thread even hinted at ignoring the NEC. Perhaps we are much more familiar with the NEC and inspections having worked with each more often.

 

[jim dungar]

Instead of trying to argue that point, I will only challenge you to get an engineer to specify a non-UL labeled tray. Or get an inspector to pass a non-UL labeled tray.

You lose this one. I have specified basket tray, which was not to be used as the EGC. I have not had any one come back and ask me to change my designs.

Go back and look at the B-Line literature. They show many different ways of creating 90? bends using their UL Classified splice kits. The splice they acknowledge as not being UL Classified is not used to create the type of bend you showed in your original photo.

After installation, using straight splice kits to create the bend shown in your OP, what is the resultant installed cross sectional area.

And, potentially every UL enclosure without knockouts (i.e. type 4, 4X, 5, and 12) looses its UL Listing as soon as it is installed. Every field cut cable entrances, duct, tray, or conduits, must be approved by the AHJ.

 

[roger]

You have NOT been paying attention at ALL. NO manufacturer claims (to my knowledge and I live in this space) that their sweeps or elevations where longitudinal wires are cut meet UL requirements. None.

No, you are not paying attention, what has been stated is that the NEC permits it under 110.3(B).

But you say it's okay if there are instructions for it in their catalog?

Well to be more correct, the NEC says it is OK per 110.3(B)

I lack the motivation or resources to push for change to NEC. Instead I simply do what it says today.

So why are you so worked up about it if you don't have motivation to change it?

I do still think there is a place for a LV class of tray just as there is a place for nonconductive (fiberglass) tray. Somebody wanted to sell fiberglass and they did the work necessary to make it legal. If somebody wants to sell special tray for LV then they should do the work necessary not just foist it off on "ignorant Americans" while sporting a fancy French smirk.

Then work to change it

What are you talking about?

I was replying to where you said,

The solution is not to ignore the Code and hope not to get caught.

Roger

 

[CAM]

You lose this one. I have specified basket tray, which was not to be used as the EGC. I have not had any one come back and ask me to change my designs.

Congratulations. I haven't been thrown through my windshield yet, but I wear a seatbelt anyway.

Go back and look at the B-Line literature. They show many different ways of creating 90? bends using their UL Classified splice kits. The splice they acknowledge as not being UL Classified is not used to create the type of bend you showed in your original photo.

And at NO TIME do they suggest that doing any of the things depicted will retain the UL listing/labeling. They show images beginning pg 61 of their 2009 catalog showing removal of longitudinal wires which will reduce the cross-sectional area below that printed on their UL label.

After installation, using straight splice kits to create the bend shown in your OP, what is the resultant installed cross sectional area.

Why don't you tell me? I say don't cut it. And UL has a published position on field modification plus we know what the label says under the CYNW program. So let's hear a cutting advocate come up with a number. Remember though that for a basket tray, it's the total *one piece* cross-section. Oops, yes, there is that little problem. It doesn't say cross-section of anything you might want to bolt together of add on does it?

 

[CAM]

Motors for ordinary locations are not listed, uni-strut is not listed etc.

384.6 Listing Requirements.
Strut-type channel raceways, closure strips, and accessories shall be listed and identified for such use.

Perhaps we are much more familiar with the NEC and inspections having worked with each more often.

Except for listing requirements for strut? :-?

 

[jim dungar]

I say don't cut it.

Finally we have the whole reason for this discussion. Its all about your opinion and not what is written in the code.

Congratulations. I haven't been thrown through my windshield yet, but I wear a seatbelt anyway.

Please stop insinuating that I am reckless in my role as a PE, simply because I disagree with you.

I have said several times, that the NEC requires labeling if the tray is used as an EGC.

Can you provide code or official AHJ language that shows my position of "no labeling is required if it is used as support only" is wrong? Particularly, because UL does not have a label or category that deals with 'fitness' as a method of cable or raceway support.

Except for listing requirements for strut?

You really need to read all of the code article and not choose phrases out of context. The section you refer to deals only with using strut as a raceway.

Strut, and tray, that is used for only structural support has no NEC requirement for labeling.

 

[mivey]

...After installation, using straight splice kits to create the bend shown in your OP, what is the resultant installed cross sectional area...

I guess we could calculate what they have figured for the splices but I don't have the needed data. Maybe there is some data available from the manufacturer.

Even so, a reasonable shot at it would say adding one more splice at each junction would get you back to at least an equivalent 0.2 inches. I have guessed a 0.196" diameter wire. I have also considered the 4 splice requirement for to maintain UL compliance in a straight junction. Nothing precise, and no proof either way, but it certainly seems reasonable to say you could get a good connection. Plus you could always ohm it out when finished.

 

[jim dungar]

I... Nothing precise, and no proof either way, but it certainly seems reasonable to say you could get a good connection.

Are you saying: it is possible that a field evaluation by UL could result in a 'non-violation finding'?

 

[CAM]

AHJ opinion - basket tray modification

AHJ opinion - basket tray modification

I realize this forum (like everything online) is burdened by argumentative behavior and apologize both forward and backward for any responsibility I might bear for that in this particular thread. The thread has veered radically off course and to no real end. The *only* opinion that matters on whether radical field modification is acceptable belongs to the AHJ (or Court if there's a liability action). Opinions are like ... elbows ... and most of us have a couple. But arguing about whether this is a violation - unless one party is an AHJ and the other party is trying to convince him - is utterly pointless and a complete waste of time.

In the spirit of trying to reduce the argument level, instead of arguing I will now try to stop and instead just reply with direct quotes from AHJ's. I'll start with this one because it's one of my favorites and comes from the great State of Colorado:

ANY listed or classified product which has been altered from the original manufactured condition is unacceptable to the Colorado State Electrical Board. Listed fittings must be used for changes in direction or elevation per the 2008 NEC 392.5E. The contractor's analogy to conduit does not work either as conduit or tubing are vastly different from cable tray. For all that the pictured field bend is ingenious, it is also a violation in that the product no longer has any listing (classification) and would be unacceptable as such.
--J. Grant Hammett
Supervisor Electrical Inspector
Colorado Department of
Regulatory Agencies

Now you may or may not agree with Mr. Hammett, but the *smart* money would be on doing things his way.

 

[CAM]

I have said several times, that the NEC requires labeling if the tray is used as an EGC.

Can you provide code or official AHJ language that shows my position of "no labeling is required if it is used as support only" is wrong? Particularly, because UL does not have a label or category that deals with 'fitness' as a method of cable or raceway support.

Chapter 56, ?Dallas Electrical Code? requires electrical equipment to be listed and labeled. If a piece of equipment is altered in the field we require it to be recertified by a NRTL with proper documentation supplied to the chief?s office and field inspector.
Lawrence Heckler
Chief Electrical Inspector
City of Dallas

Note the above was a direct reply to the same photos I posted originally.