Electrical Equipment Pad/Working Space Violation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dale001289 said:
I believe most AHJs would disagree with you. Besides most housekeeping pads are nowhere near 6”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

In 40 years it has never been even a discussion with an inspector on any job that I have seen.
This is a non issue in New England.

The OP mentioned a 20” extension. That is too much and should be a violation.
It should be 3’ to 4’ depending on the condition, or 6”.
 
tkb said:
In 40 years it has never been even a discussion with an inspector on any job that I have seen.
This is a non issue in New England.

The OP mentioned a 20” extension. That is too much and should be a violation.
It should be 3’ to 4’ depending on the condition, or 6”.
Click to expand...

It’s a judgement call.
I’ve seen it go both ways - depends on QA/QC inspectors. In Petro-chem facilites they tend to be less tolerant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
shortcircuit2 said:
Little off the subject here but...

Do you tie your house keeping pads with rebar into the slab below or do you just "float" them?
Click to expand...

Not sure - but I believe it’s preferred to tie them in rather than floating in order to prevent pad from cracking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
shortcircuit2 said:
Little off the subject here but...

Do you tie your house keeping pads with rebar into the slab below or do you just "float" them?
Click to expand...

They are usually installed with dowels drilled into the supporting slab with rebar in the housekeeping pad, but not always.
 
tkb said:
In 40 years it has never been even a discussion with an inspector on any job that I have seen.
This is a non issue in New England.

The OP mentioned a 20” extension. That is too much and should be a violation.
It should be 3’ to 4’ depending on the condition, or 6”.
Click to expand...

I agree, standard construction.

Tis a technicality that it is a violation per se, but ignored, similar to objectionable current at a service, necessary evil but allowed.
 
Carultch said:
Can an equipment slab count for the 6" rule per 110.26(A)(3), just as a raceway can penetrate the workspace up to 6"? The article states "other equipment associated with the electrical installation", and a housekeeping slab specifically built for electrical equipment is "associated with the electrical installation".
Click to expand...
I suppose it is a judgement call, I also think most inspectors will consider it to be associated with the electrical installation though. If you didn't have the gear there you wouldn't have that specific slab there.

Someone messes up and makes it 20" too wide, now you have a problem with working clearances. Make it 36" inches too wide, you may not get what was intended but still possibly comply with working clearances.
 
jumper said:
I agree, standard construction.

Tis a technicality that it is a violation per se, but ignored, similar to objectionable current at a service, necessary evil but allowed.
Click to expand...

That's what I see. Who really cares if it's a technical violation, we're talking about the floor. I've never seen a pad that wasn't a "violation". In my experience no one really cares about the pad in the working space.
 
infinity said:
That's what I see. Who really cares if it's a technical violation, we're talking about the floor. I've never seen a pad that wasn't a "violation". In my experience no one really cares about the pad in the working space.
Click to expand...

With MV switchgear, you could have an issue with the truck and removal of CB’s.
6” is not a big deal but beyond that would be


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top