Is 553 Applicable?

Status
Not open for further replies.
charlie b

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
The definition of "floating building" includes the notion that the building itself is floating on water. What if a building sits entirely on a pier, and it is the pier that floats on water?
 
In the absence of direct experience, maybe a keyword search will help.

Found "floating structure" in 553, 555.7, 682.11, and 682.2 item (4)

"floating pier" in 555.2 Definitions for Electrical Datum Plane. item (3)
 
And hence a suitably electrified floating pier already meets the Article 553 definition of floating building, whether or not an additional building is on top of the pier.

Cheers, Wayne
 
That is a very good question. The definition of floating building in 553.2 states that the building itself floats and is moored in a permanent location. I think that a structure supported by a pier would fall under Article 555. For example, let's say that someone installs a 5KV isolation switch on a pier and the inspector turns it down citing 555.4. You build a shed enclosure around it say it is a floating building and that Article 555 no longer applies. A structure sitting on a pier doth not a floating building make.
 
What stands out in each of those sections, is they don’t want service equipment on the pier, and they want a proper Electrum Datum Plain
 
A Washington admin code (WAC) rule has eliminated all consideration of the electrical datum plane in this state. At this point, I do not know for certain whether the pier floats or is solidly attached to planet Earth via pilings. Suppose it is not floating on water, but is merely surrounded by water on three sides.

The service equipment is on dry land, and feeders run out to two or more buildings on the pier. Would that mean that 225 governs, and not 553 or 555? Would 225 still apply even if the pier is floating?

The issue is that in a very long building, there is an existing feeder on one side. A tenant wants to move into a space on the other side. The owner wants to power the tenant from the nearby building, thus saving a very long 400 amp feeder. The AHJ has said that this would violate 225.30, but "hinted" that they might consider the special permission of 225.30(B)(2). I might even be able to argue that 225.30(E) applies. But I have to start with whether or not we are even in article 225.
 
Update: I now have very strong evidence that the pier in question does not float, but rather is supported by concrete pilings.
 
It appears competitive bidders are trying to sell the lowest-cost solution to the planning dept.

I would agree, using overhead weather masts, feeders drops, between buildings is lowest cost, if planning buys off.
 
Charlie,

A pier covered under Article 555 is required to comply with Article 225 by 555.13(B)(2). Article 553 modifies Article 225 by limiting the supply to the building to a single feeder (553.6) without exception. If this structure is fixed, then it definitely falls under Article 555 if it is used for one of the purposes stated in the scope of that article.

RB
 
RB1 said:
A pier covered under Article 555 is required to comply with Article 225 by 555.13(B)(2). Article 553 modifies Article 225 by limiting the supply to the building to a single feeder (553.6) without exception. If this structure is fixed, then it definitely falls under Article 555 if it is used for one of the purposes stated in the scope of that article.
Click to expand...
Thanks to everyone for the replies.

I agree that 555 is a player, even if the pier is fixed. 553 is not a player, in that it only addresses structures that float. That said, 553.6 does have an exception that allows more than one feeder, when there are multiple occupancies.

My conclusion is that taking advantage of the "special permission" available under 225.30(B)(2) is our best path forward.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top