- Location
- Massachusetts
I see no reason to change the code, the simple answer is to have the HVAC contractor provide the correct hardwired type of pump.
Condensate Pumps above ceilings
- Thread starter olc
- Start date
- Status
I agree, I have actually seen pumps that hardwired and interlocked into the HVAC unit and shut the system down if there were a pump failure.
Heck, we are already having to fix the additive harmonic issue, why should we (and the NEC) have to change to fix this problem?
Roger
Hendrix
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
agreed, it's not a big deal.
I agree with this.
The problem is not the code rule, its the Equipment Locations that's gigging us.
Just think how the GFI issues would change for us if all Commercial Kitchen equipment was 240v instead of 120v.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Bob I would ordinarily agree with you 100%, but I don't see how the Code can prohibit flex cords above a grid ceiling (which is fairly easy to access and is dryer and often cleaner than underfloor spaces) and yet allow them below a raised floor where I have personally seen excess moisture, dirt and other junk built up. It just doesn't make any sense to me.
When was the last time someone flooded a grid ceiling or spilled a mop bucket up there? :grin:
Now if the grid ceiling is a plenum space, (which is rare but does happen) I can see a concern for possible smoke and/or flame contribution issues. Again ironic since a lot of raised floors (especially in data centers) are used as air circulation space.
If it is NOT a plenum ceiling I see no reason for the prohibition.
Last edited:
LawnGuyLandSparky
Senior Member
I don't see a reason even if it is a plenum ceiling. Keep in mind the entire occupied space is also a plenum, how many cords are in that space?
- Location
- Massachusetts
No, ordinarily we do not agree.
The same code section that prohibits cords above ceilings also prohibits cords below floors. Or did you not really look at the code sections?
Article 645 allows certain types of cords below floors but in order to use 645 you need to conform to all the rules found in 645.4 EPO button, seperate HVAC and or smoke dampers, room occupied by only necessary people, the room separated from other areas by fire resistant walls floors and ceilings.
I have never seen an above ceiling space with an EPO button.
I do not think the rule has anything to do with 'moisture, dirt and other junk'.
That seems to be a running theme with you. :grin:
Cords are generally rated for wet locations so that is kind of a moot point.
Again, you are forgetting that there are many rules to meet before you can run cords under a floor. Unless the room is in fact an 'information technology room' it is a violation to run cords under floors.
Yeah lets forget that there is no reason we have to use cords above ceilings, there are other wiring methods including flexible ones. To me the fact that the cords covered by the NEC will degrade, crack and have the installation fall off them, which I have seen it first hand more than once is enough reason to keep the prohibition as it is.
Side note. I used to work on some German made equipment that was exclusively wired with a European type flexible cord, these cords where left outside at an ocean front continuously for at least 25 years before I worked with them. A lot of the cord was also in full sun, they where still in great shape, stiffer but not cracking. Where I stripped them for cord connector replacement the internal insulation and conductors looked brand new. Why is it our 'NEMA' cords do not perform this well?
Last edited:
- Location
- Massachusetts
Actually the space above a ceiling is never a 'plenum' and neither is the entire space.
lakee911
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, OH
Made in America, Baby!
whats taking place with this?
GeorgeB
ElectroHydraulics engineer (retired)
- Location
- Greenville SC
- Occupation
- Retired
I pretend to be an engineer, not an electrician, but to me, a significant issue is that heat (and smoke) rises ... damage under a floor will be more likely to make itself known than above the dropped ceiling.
lakee911
Senior Member
- Location
- Columbus, OH
Another thing could be that the IT industry pressured the code making panel for allowance under floors ... otherwise they couldn't use their raised floors. One more thing is tripping is avoided by being under the floor.
Well if you're gonna get picky....:grin:
I confess to making my responses based on the illustration earlier in this thread and did not take the time at posting to look up the Code section..
Now having 645 makes more sense in why it allows IT rooms to have cords, but it still doen't change my opinion on the wisdom based on my comment about "moisture, dirt and other junk."
In this case yes I agree.
Perhaps but it does spice things up when you and I go at it. :grin:
Perhaps you are right..you have seen a lot of bad cords in that environment, but in the situations I have run into (usually things like ceiling-mounted video projectors for example) I have yet to see a cord even stiffer than normal. I imagine it would greatly depend on the "environment" above the ceiling as well as quality of cord and its age.
By the same token I have seen damaged/corroded MC cable above ceilings as well.
There is simply no such thing as a perfect wiring method no matter what you use it for.
Like someone else alluded to it's in where it's made. I have found most European/German made equipment to be built to very high standards.
Is any kind of aging test a part of NEMA standards?
iwire said:
There are several architects and engineers who will disagree with the first part of that statement (in bold). My new screening room's projection booth ceiling is classified as a plenum ceiling and ALL of the LV wiring for my sound system in that space had to be in conduit or be plenum rated. :grin:
That is probably because the mechanical code defines "plenum" differently than the NEC. By the IMC definition that space above the the suspended ceiling used for return air movment would be a plenum, but under the NEC definition it is not. Which definition takes precedence depends upon whether we are applying an NEC regulation or an IMC regulation.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Not following you, cords are routinely subject to moisture and dirt.
I do not doubt you're observations in the least. That said when you write a safety code you have to be conservative ......... especially when being conservative does not impose a hardship ....... there are other methods that can be used.
Again no doubt, I bet in most case it was from improper installation.
That is true but still do not see the hardship cause by prohibiting cords above ceilings.
I do not know.
We have been talking about the NEC, and as long as we are talking about the NEC the several architects and engineers are mistaken if that is what they said.
See NEC 300.22(C) and it's FPN.
I'll have to do some research on this, but I have a feeling that 400.8.5 wasn't intended for a piece of equipment with a listed cord plugged in, but rather prohibit running cords as branch wiring.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Yes 400.8(5) prohibits the use of flexible cords even when they come factory installed on listed equipment.
400.8(1) prohibits the use of cord for branch circuit wiring.
In 23 year I worked as an electrician I am still to see a SOW cord even pinched. And I have seen some abused ones during these times.
Ahhh, I knew that wasn't the intent of the code:
Let's read 400.8 again:
"Unless specifically permitted in 400.7, flexible cords and cables shall not be used for the following.....blah, blah."
Now let's look at 400.7 specifically #8:
"Appliances where the fastening means and mechanical connections are specifically designed to permit ready removal for maintenance and repair, and the appliance is intended or identified for flexible cord connection"
Like I said the equipment being listed for cord connection.
- Status