Nec 110.27 (b)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suppose it depends on the nature of the facility. If there is a lot of traffic, or if the persons walking in that area will be carrying tools, or if the area is congested and hard to walk around, then I could see describing the lights as being subject to damage. So I can't argue against the engineer's call, without knowing more about the layout.

Welcome to the forum.

Edited to add: But if the original plans did not call for guards around the lights, then I would say this is a change in scope, and that you should get paid for the additional parts and labor.
 
Thank you. I find it confusing when this section is refernced as live. Light fixtures do not per say have live parts unless there is an open socket. This happens many times in temporary lighting.
 
sparkybonnie said:
Thank you. I find it confusing when this section is refernced as live. Light fixtures do not per say have live parts unless there is an open socket. This happens many times in temporary lighting.
Click to expand...

I agree typically the fixture has no live exsposed parts, seen guards to keep lamps from falling to the floor if they come out of the socket on FL fixtures. As I read it if he is quoting 110.27 (B) then they are mis quoting. Cause a Lamp is not consider a live part. And they should have put that in the scope of the work or spec'ed a fixture that had a cage around it or something to protect the lamps.
And I do not know where in the NEC it says about protecting the lamp only protecting combustable materials from the lamp.(not that there isnt something I just do not know of it)
 
sparkybonnie said:
Thank you. I find it confusing when this section is refernced as live.
Click to expand...
OK, I missed that detail, and it is a vital detail. Sub-paragraph (B) is talking about the guards that are called for under sub-paragraph (A). But if you don't need the guards, based on sub-paragraph (A) not being applicable to your installation, then you don't have to even read, let alone apply, the requirements of sub-paragraph (B).

Basically, the engineer is wrong. Being an engineer, I don't have a problem making a bold statement of that nature. :):cool:

110.27 is all about live parts, and protecting personnel from contact with live parts. That does not apply to light bulbs. So if the engineer or the owner wants to protect the light bulbs against physical damage (which is not a bad idea, in some congested areas), then the owner will have to pay for the added work. There is no code requirement that your installation fails to comply with, and therefore they have no basis for calling upon you to pay for the added parts and labor.
 
charlie b said:
OK, I missed that detail, and it is a vital detail. Sub-paragraph (B) is talking about the guards that are called for under sub-paragraph (A). But if you don't need the guards, based on sub-paragraph (A) not being applicable to your installation, then you don't have to even read, let alone apply, the requirements of sub-paragraph (B).

Basically, the engineer is wrong. Being an engineer, I don't have a problem making a bold statement of that nature. :):cool:
Click to expand...

Sorry Charlie, I disagree that (B) is inferior to (A). (B) would also apply where unexposed live parts could become exposed due to damage. This would include electrical equipment exposed to the movement of fork trucks. Typical solution is pillar barriers.

charlie b said:
110.27 is all about live parts, and protecting personnel from contact with live parts. That does not apply to light bulbs. So if the engineer or the owner wants to protect the light bulbs against physical damage (which is not a bad idea, in some congested areas), then the owner will have to pay for the added work. There is no code requirement that your installation fails to comply with, and therefore they have no basis for calling upon you to pay for the added parts and labor.
Click to expand...

And I believe you are presuming that "Protecting personnel" thing. That's not actually expressed in the text.

As to the cost, sounds like the protection is a judgement call. Did they not review the quote and materials?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top