Commercial Panels 10 feet high.....violation or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PowerMan2020

Member
Location
virginia
Occupation
electrician
I saw this recently and wondered if this is to code. I'm certain breakers need to be 6'7" max height and also not lower than 4' off the ground. I wonder if there is some special consideration for this being in a commercial location. The height of the top row of panels are 10 feet and the lowest ones are 4 feet. Are these top row of panels in clear violation? Note: these are for computer 'miners' and will be located entirely behind those panels. The guy who is paying insane amounts of money for this says he will be OK thanks to 404.8(A) Exception No. 2....but I'm not sold.
 

Attachments

  • panels.png
    panels.png
    956.1 KB · Views: 133
  • panels.png
    panels.png
    876.2 KB · Views: 124
Last edited:
People need to really think for a second about what they are reading before blurting out some code that doesnt apply. For one thing, article 404 is for switches. Yes 404.8 also covers "circuit breakers used as switches", but are there really any circuit breakers used as switches here? 240.24 would likely be the section to attempt justification, but even then, where the hell is the busway?

P.S. there is no minimum 4' either.
 
The panel mains have lighted displays.perhaps the max height does not apply, as there is an upstream OCPD. It’s a very nice job, likely engineered
 
Our inspectors would gig it on 240.24.
Depending on the manufacturer, there might be a problem with cover over-lap.
 
I wonder if anyone calculated the power density of heat dissipation in that rack. Could probably heat a high rise with the heat coming off the thing.
 
If the top rack behind the top row of panels holds equipment supplied by the top row of panels, the arrangement clearly complies with 404.8 Exception 2 and 240.24(A)(4), assuming "portable means" are provided.

Cheers, Wayne
 
winnie said:
I wonder if anyone calculated the power density of heat dissipation in that rack. Could probably heat a high rise with the heat coming off the thing.
Click to expand...
From what hear, they use large exhaust fans to remove the heat, kinda like a wind tunnel. There is some about 30-40 miles away from me, and they say the neighbors are complaining about the noise.
 
Can not have the top circuit breaker more then 2 meters or 6'7" off floor. Code never had a minimum space off a floor to install panels in normal areas. ( Gas stations & fuel dispensing locations might be different ). Large hospital/research campus that I retired from had over 30 84 circuit 120/208 panels and 800 amp 480 volt distribution panels where they bolted bottom of panels on top of standard 1 5/8" standard unistrut. Tops if some of these panels were well over 7' off floor. Best practice is to keep all electrical panels at least a inch off floors to reduce risk of water intrusion & rusting.
 
wwhitney said:
If the top rack behind the top row of panels holds equipment supplied by the top row of panels, the arrangement clearly complies with 404.8 Exception 2 and 240.24(A)(4), assuming "portable means" are provided.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Can this really be considered adjacent to the units at the far end of that rack? When I think of the application of of those two sections, I think a circuit breaker for an air handler above a drop ceiling or something similar.
 
I still find it hard to believe that all of the the costs involved will be recouped.

The building space, electrical equipment, computer equipment, LV wiring, internet access and electric bills, etc.

If it will definitely pay for itself and make a profit, why isn't everyone doing it?

Wouldn't a bank be willing to lend anyone the money if profit is a sure thing?
 
EC Dan said:
Can this really be considered adjacent to the units at the far end of that rack? When I think of the application of of those two sections, I think a circuit breaker for an air handler above a drop ceiling or something similar.
Click to expand...
Good question, obviously a judgement call. Maybe depends on how long the branch circuit is?

If the rack were 20' tall and only 10' deep, then I would say a breaker is adjacent to all the equipment behind it in that 10' of depth. But it looks more like 200' deep.

If there's a PDU directly behind the panelboard, and some of the equipment supplied by the PDU is directly behind the panelboard, then I'd make the argument the branch circuit is very short and the breaker is next to some of the utilization equipment supplied.

But if the branch circuits range from 10' to 180' down, I definitely see the argument that the long branch circuits are supplying equipment that is not adjacent to the breaker, so it wouldn't comply with the exception.

Cheers, Wayne
 
It looks like there is plenty of room to have put the panels at a realistic height.
 
acrwc10 said:
It looks like there is plenty of room to have put the panels at a realistic height.
Click to expand...
That was my first impression as well. Although we don't know anything about their future use plans for the space, they are gambling an awful lot on that set up when they could have devoted an additional ~75 square feet of space to remove any questions of compliance. Would the savings from conduit and wire be expected to be significant in this case? Can't imagine it being more than $1000, which would be a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of all the mining rigs.
 
maybe they will building some type of motorized platform to gain access to the higher panels. press a button and brings you up and is stored away when not needed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top