Code question

[gtbkdn]

At work, someone has removed the insulation from an SO cord to take current readings on the energized circuit (black wire). Can anyone tell me if this is a code violation, and if so, what code? Thank you.

 

[ramsy]

That depends if the cable was in pipe, in the ground, or listed junction box.

Are conductors now expose to the elements, with sheath not repaired to its equivalent condition?

 

[gtbkdn]

That depends if the cable was in pipe, in the ground, or listed junction box.

Are conductors now expose to the elements, with sheath not repaired to its equivalent condition?

This was a homemade extension cord. The extension cord was made to connect a 120V twist lock plug from a computer rack power supply, to a 120V straight blade plug that could be plugged into a 5-15 receptacle on the wall. The cord was laying on the floor.

 

[ptonsparky]

OSHA?
Short term test equipment would put a different spin on it.

 

[BillyMac59]

Be proactive . Have a 120V line splitter made available so this sloppy work need not be repeated. (Cost less than $100)

 

[gtbkdn]

Be proactive . Have a 120V line splitter made available so this sloppy work need not be repeated. (Cost less than $100)

Be proactive . Have a 120V line splitter made available so this sloppy work need not be repeated. (Cost less than $100)

This is very helpful. I'm sincerely appreciative.

I am also interested in understanding the code that was violated so when I explain that something isn't safe, I have a regulation backing me up. Many people are more responsive when you can refer them to a regulation that stipulates the reason why, versus just being told that this is the way it is.

 

[Chamuit]

110.3.C

Cord caps are meant to replace like-for-like not to make an improvised illegal cord.

 

[gtbkdn]

Here are the photos.

 

[Chamuit]

Thought you had two male cord caps. The integrity of the cord is compromised with the peeling off of the sheathing. Terminations need to be made better.

 

[jusme123]

Extension cords and power connectors over 50 volts must be tested and labeled by an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recognized testing laboratory

 

[gtbkdn]

Extension cords and power connectors over 50 volts must be tested and labeled by an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recognized testing laboratory

This is helpful. If possible, please detail what specific regulation is being referenced in this response.

 

[BillyMac59]

T At the very least, you can cite poor workmanship. Once the insulating outer covering has been removed from "extension cord" type cable, you are left with exposed conductors ie. no longer having any measure of mechanical protection and therefore an unsafe and improper application of the cabling.

 

[suemarkp]

One of the first items on our area safety checks was for frayed/cracked/deteriorated jacket material on cords. The next was for cord jackets that have pulled out of the cord cap. I found both of those issues all the time. These checklists were derived from OSHA and state requirements.

The black jacket on the cord is more of a protection mechanism for the conductors with in. Insulation is the blue, brown, and green material on each conductor. So technically, the conductors are still insulated. What has been lost is the protection to those conductors. That being said, we made cords just like that for test purposes in order to measure the current draw of a rack. But we didn't leave it in place very long. I think there is no issue if the intent is short term use to monitor the system. But with a NEMA 5-15 straight blade on one end, you could just plug a non-destroyed cord in to a Kill-A-Watt and get better information (current draw, power factor, and watts).

 

[4x4dually]

I keep one of these in my desk. It has a X1 for larger currents and a X10 loop for smaller currents. I just plug it in the wall, the cord into it, and use my current clamp around it. Eliminates the need to remove insulation to separate conductors.

Also has probe holes for voltage testing. Maybe that will help someone in the future.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

110.3.C

Cord caps are meant to replace like-for-like not to make an improvised illegal cord.

There is nothing in the NEC that prohibits making your own cords using cords and cord caps.

110.3(C) does not say anything other than that were equipment is required to be listed, the listing agency must be one that is compliant with 110.3(C).

 

[gtbkdn]

There is nothing in the NEC that prohibits making your own cords using cords and cord caps.

110.3(C) does not say anything other than that were equipment is required to be listed, the listing agency must be one that is compliant with 110.3(C).

There is nothing in the NEC that prohibits making your own cords using cords and cord caps.

110.3(C) does not say anything other than that were equipment is required to be listed, the listing agency must be one that is compliant with 110.3(C).

Even two different plug configurations? I realize they're both grounded, both the same voltage, both the same amperage. Just curious.

 

[suemarkp]

Certainly. its done al the time, especially when something shows up with a 15 to 20A twist lock and all you have are straight blade 5-20 receptacles. You can also buy all sorts of adapter cords from say 6-30 to 6-20, 5-15 to 5-20 or 5-30, all the different RV variation cords that allow the 30A trailer plug to go into a 5-15, 5-20, 5-30, etc.

 

[ramsy]

Even two different plug configurations? I realize they're both grounded, both the same voltage, both the same amperage. Just curious.

Lots of NEC rules for wall receptacles in the building, but equipment plugged into the building has separate NRTL / test requirements for the purpose.

NEC 110.3(B) requires you follow listed
equipment instructions for any cord cap wire size, stranding type, torque, & temp. limit specs.

For example, if the wire in your cord was too small for the load, causing excess temperature rise, that would be a listing violation.

 

[LarryFine]

For example, if the wire in your cord was too small for the load, causing excess temperature rise, that would be a listing violation.

Not to mention a mis-calculation and -application by whomever assembled and installed it.

 

[ramsy]

Not to mention a mis-calculation and -application by whomever assembled and installed it.

Roger that, claims investigators who discover burnt extension cords, can't be forced to cover violated-equip. listings, or uses not permitted.

Since the NEC can't keep topics in the same place, it recently took the code experts and historians on this forum about a month of concerted effort to track down some extension-cord uses not permitted, without any cross reference to each other.

If memory serves:

400.12(1-7) Flexible cords cant be used as permanent wiring, thru walls, ceilings, doors, windows, attached to surfaces, or subject to damage.

210.50(C) Cords cant reach outlets > 6ft away.

430.22(G) => #14 cord or wire for motor operated appliances.

I'm sure there's more references to strain relief, max length, wet or classified locations, etc..