Neatness required by NEC?

Status
Not open for further replies.

nakulak

Senior Member
so if it's 4-3's and 2-2's (?), that would be a box at least 18+3x3+2x2=31 inches square, with the distance between any two raceways containing same conductor at least 18" (can't tell from pic). (314.28 A 2)
 
I recently ran across an installation of a splice box in a nema 3r enclosure.

The uploaded photo shows the installation (a 12" extension was added the box in the photo). Does anybody see any code violations?
The NEC does not have a 'neat and workmanlike manner' clause, as it is beyond its mandate. If the work spec or local ordinance does not call for I have difficulty how the AHJ could refuse to sign on that basis alone.
 
Location
Maine
The NEC does not have a 'neat and workmanlike manner' clause, as it is beyond its mandate. If the work spec or local ordinance does not call for I have difficulty how the AHJ could refuse to sign on that basis alone.
What is 110.12 Mechanical execution of work. Electrical equipment shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I have found there is a definite correlation between neatness(pride in the job) and serious code violations.
Exactly, a bad looking job will usually come under more scrutiny by the inspector and if there are actually safety issues they can almost always be addressed with an enforceable code section.
 

wireguy8169

Senior Member
Location
Southern Maine
In the case of the picture an inspector could say there is not enough space in the box for the conductors, even though it may not exceed the box fill "Boxes and conduit bodies shall be of sufficient size to provide free space for
all enclosed conductor" and as said there is

110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work. Electrical equipment
shall be installed in a neat and workmanlike manner.
FPN: Accepted industry practices are described in
ANSI/NECA 1-2006, Standard Practices for Good Workmanship
in Electrical Contracting, and other ANSIapproved
installation standards.

I would hope that (unless they are the company or company owner) someone higher up would call them on that kind of work. If you figure all that excess conductor in the box at todays prices thats a good bit of overage, and at the very least the scraps could have gone to the scrap yard to get some money back.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
In the case of the picture an inspector could say there is not enough space in the box for the conductors, even though it may not exceed the box fill
There are no box fill requirements for these size conductors and inspector cannot just decide to make some up on the spot.

There are legitimate violations that could be cited here.
 

wireguy8169

Senior Member
Location
Southern Maine
Then I was misinformed, I was told on an occasion by an inspector that even if your box is of sufficent volume if you leave so much free conductor that it does not leave enough free space for the conductors its a violation. And when I read 314.16 I can see how that is interpreted like that.

So was I mis informed? If so please explain
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Then I was misinformed, I was told on an occasion by an inspector that even if your box is of sufficent volume if you leave so much free conductor that it does not leave enough free space for the conductors its a violation. And when I read 314.16 I can see how that is interpreted like that.

So was I mis informed? If so please explain
How do you apply 316.16 to conductors larger than #6? While the rule says that it applies, there is no volume allowance in the NEC for box fill for conductors larger than #6.
 

wireguy8169

Senior Member
Location
Southern Maine
Now I am really scratching my head. Maybe it was a typo but I quoted 314.16 not 316.16. And if the conductors are 4awg or larger it points you to 314.28 . And then wouldnt you have to take the actually volume of the individual conductros.

314.16 Number of Conductors in Outlet, Device, and
Junction Boxes, and Conduit Bodies. Boxes and conduit
bodies shall be of sufficient size to provide free space for
all enclosed conductors. In no case shall the volume of the
box, as calculated in 314.16(A), be less than the fill calculation
as calculated in 314.16(B). The minimum volume for
conduit bodies shall be as calculated in 314.16(C).
The provisions of this section shall not apply to terminal
housings supplied with motors or generators.
FPN: For volume requirements of motor or generator terminal
housings, see 430.12.
Boxes and conduit bodies enclosing conductors 4 AWG
or larger shall also comply with the provisions of 314.28
.


my question based on a response to my response. was that even if the fill calculation allows for (just throwing out a number) 10 conductors of a certain size, if you leave so much conductor that the free space (which I am sure is open to debate also) of the conductors enclosed with in that box could be a violation? I am not saying it is, thats what I am trying to learn...and again I know an inspector may say it is but is it?
 

wireguy8169

Senior Member
Location
Southern Maine
It that case you would use 314.28 and use the one that applies (straight,angle pulls). After the reply by iwire to one of my replys it got me to doing more searching and I see where I was in error as you stated there is not a box fill but there is way we have to size the box. So in that instance, you size the box (I am really learning that you have to really word things with very little ambiguity :grin:) to fit the conductors per the calculation.
Then I pull in the conductors and say "man I figured way to much conductor my boss is going to skin me if I take back all that waste" so I leave it looong. When its all said and done the inspector comes along and see's that and flags it due to the fact that there is not enough free space for the conductors, even though by the code the box is the correct size. Is that legit?

Sorry if I hijacked the post.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
It that case you would use 314.28 and use the one that applies (straight,angle pulls). After the reply by iwire to one of my replys it got me to doing more searching and I see where I was in error as you stated there is not a box fill but there is way we have to size the box. So in that instance, you size the box (I am really learning that you have to really word things with very little ambiguity :grin:) to fit the conductors per the calculation.
Actually you size the box to fit the raceways. The size of the conductors, larger than #6, do not enter into the sizing of the box.
Then I pull in the conductors and say "man I figured way to much conductor my boss is going to skin me if I take back all that waste" so I leave it looong. When its all said and done the inspector comes along and see's that and flags it due to the fact that there is not enough free space for the conductors, even though by the code the box is the correct size. Is that legit?

Sorry if I hijacked the post.
I am not sure what section the inspector could cite for that. Without evidence of damage to the conductors, I am not sure that there would be a violaiton.
Note that if you are talking about conductors #6 and smaller and the loop is longer than 12" you need a "double" allowance.
 

alfein

Member
Poor planning

Poor planning

It seems to me that the worst part of this installation is that there seems to be no planning. They said lets run the conduits and we'll figure something out later. They
probably picked the biggest RT box off the shelf and said OK this will do. I also
dont see any support for the Sealtites so they probably had a hard time pulling the wire.
Like someone said, good workmanship will forstall an inspector looking too close at the
job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top