- Location
- Massachusetts
Dick we still put metal 'top hats' on switchgear but to me that looks like a homemade plywood wall.
Does this violate the code of dedicated equipment space?
- Thread starter yeemartin
- Start date
- Status
Dick we still put metal 'top hats' on switchgear but to me that looks like a homemade plywood wall.
I hear what you are saying but if this is flame retardant material and is being used for a gutter then its legal IMO,,There are to many loose ends to make a sound decision ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,certainly the client bought into this and the big guys are most all self insured,,,,,,,,,but the curiosity of whats right still exists.
dick
dick
Last edited:
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
In the picture in this thread the outer surface of the "wall" and the front of the gear appear to be the same. This would also be the case for a flush mounted panel.
I think the rule applies to the outside dimensions of the equipment.
Last edited:
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
I don't see how you can say the bottom plate of a wall is a ceiling.
buldogg
Senior Member
- Location
- Green Bay, Wisc.
FWIW I think the house keeping pad is also a violation that is just accepted.
The housekeeping pad creates a violation of 404.8(A) - height above floor for the uppermost switch handles
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
I agree about this specific picture, but I am not sure in general that the NEC intends to require 'clear access' space above areas that do not provide access. Of course access is not the only reason to want "clear" space above equipment (i.e. leaking pipes). What is the purpose behind this code requirement?
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
The wording in 110.26(F) really should be changed as it does seem to make any flush mounted panel against code, and the substantiation would be that it has been allowed for many years and panel equipment has been manufactured for this specific installation for the same many years, that this would bring the code more in line with an already accepted practice. I have seen many substantiations in the ROP's with this substantiation.
110.26(F) does not state any differance to a flush mount lighting and branch circuit panel or a MDP or even a MCC.
the problem is where is states "depth of the equipment" which to me says the area above the top of the panel and the area below the bottom of the panel.
Which to me is saying that panel can not be flush with parts of the building that can not be located in these dedicated spaces
110.26(F) does not state any differance to a flush mount lighting and branch circuit panel or a MDP or even a MCC.
the problem is where is states "depth of the equipment" which to me says the area above the top of the panel and the area below the bottom of the panel.
Which to me is saying that panel can not be flush with parts of the building that can not be located in these dedicated spaces
Last edited:
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
I don't see a top or bottom wall plate, if by that term you mean the plywood stuff.
I agree with the similarity between this situation and a flush mounted panel. The thickness of the wall material would be within the footprint of the panel, and that puts it within the dedicated space. I can't comment on the "is a wall 'equipment' issue, as I am at home and do not have a copy of the code book here. Can someone please post the exception that was mentioned above?
Regarding "intent," for whatever worth that word might possess, I don't see a problem. The idea is that if you don't allow pipes or ducts over a panel, then there will be room for future conduits. For a flush mounted panel, in order to install those future conduits, you would have to remove some amount of the wall above or below the panel, and then repair the wall later. That would be the same situation here.
- Location
- Massachusetts
No.
Typically when a wall is construed you have vertical studs attached to a sole (or bottom) plate and a top plate, offten a double plate.
The plates are typically the same dimensional lumber that is used for the vertical members but run horizontally.
I am fairly certain the building code would call these plates part of the wall system.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
I don't see how a flush mount panel violates this section, as long as there are no foreign piping, etc in the wall then the space is open and I wouldn't consider a double top plate any different that a structural ceiling.
Nothing in the code says that space has to be wide open or readily accessible.
- Status