NEC 2017 section 225.32

Status
Not open for further replies.
hhsting said:
2nd drawings says one disconnect is 100 feet from point of entrance and second one is 50feet from point of entrance. So both disconnects are like 50 feet apart from each other

Where it says entire feeder has to be concrete encased. It just says concrete encased till nearest point of entrance. Part thats in fire wall is outside concrete encased. Its not in bldg #1 nor bldg#2 or is it considered to be in both bldg #1 and bldg#2?

If disconnect is required nearest point of entrance of feeders bldg#2 then which code section you are applying? 225.32?
Click to expand...

Bldg #2 does not have service disco. Its fed from bldg #1 feeder post #14 sketch
 
Assuming it is actually two building, based on the sketch in post 14, you need disconnects on the concrete wall as you enter the second building.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Assuming it is actually two building, based on the sketch in post 14, you need disconnects on the concrete wall as you enter the second building.
Click to expand...

Building #2 have feeders Not service conductors. NEC 2017 section 230 does not apply. Should you apply NEC 2017 section 225 then its scope is for outside feeders. Would you consider building #2 feeders outside feeders? Also then What code section would disconnect at wall as you enter second building be required?
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Again, nothing in the sketch in post 14 is outside the building where you are applying 230.6.
Click to expand...

Don’t follow. Can you please explain? 230.6 says conductors installed in raceway. Its not just about raceway itself

Post #14 Sketch shows firewall has 2 inch concrete encased with conductors in conduit
 
hhsting said:
Don’t follow. Can you please explain? 230.6 says conductors installed in raceway. Its not just about raceway itself

Post #14 Sketch shows firewall has 2 inch concrete encased with conductors in conduit
Click to expand...
Sorry, I missed the writing...if the raceways are actually encased in 2" of concrete, that is fine.
That type of installation is very expensive and very rare, and can't imagine anyone actually doing it. The concrete encasement and support would likely cost many times more than just installing a disconnect on the concrete wall.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Sorry, I missed the writing...if the raceways are actually encased in 2" of concrete, that is fine.
That type of installation is very expensive and very rare, and can't imagine anyone actually doing it. The concrete encasement and support would likely cost many times more than just installing a disconnect on the concrete wall.
Click to expand...

No you are still not following. The concrete encased is between buildings i.e firewall itself. As soon as the feeders enter second building feeders are Not concrete encased.
 
hhsting said:
No you are still not following. The concrete encased is between buildings i.e firewall itself. As soon as the feeders enter second building feeders are Not concrete encased.
Click to expand...
I
Then they are NOT outside the building and the disconnect needs to be nearest the point of entrance of the feeder conductors and that will require the disconnects to be on the concrete wall. The fact that they pass through the wall in concrete does not mean anything.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I
Then they are NOT outside the building and the disconnect needs to be nearest the point of entrance of the feeder conductors and that will require the disconnects to be on the concrete wall. The fact that they pass through the wall in concrete does not mean anything.
Click to expand...

Alright now what code section requires disconnect nearest the point of entrance of the feeder conductors?
 
Tricky situation for sure but I see where you are going with this.

I once worked on a 17 story office building that had a parking garage below ground level. They needed a new service for the building and cutting up the garage floor wasn't an option due to structural complications so we proposed bringing in the conduit along the garage ceiling (ground level) all encased in concrete. AHJ seemed to like our creativity.

Anyways, I just went over this topic with a local AHJ in my neck of the woods. In order to have a MDP's MCB act as the service disconnect (that is also not near an exterior wall) the feeder had to hit the exterior meter, routed directly underground or encased in concrete as code allows, ran laterally to my gears location, then needs terminate within the bottom fed MDP/gear. Once it terminates within the MDP its considered in the building. They said the code is vague for "disconnect at nearest point within the building" but generally they allow 15' ish exception to this rule.

If you take that approach to your situation, I would imagine you'll get hit on a 230.6 violation from building 2's feeder passing through another building (bld1). If you just run conduit to your brick/concrete wall, its not fully encased in concrete. If you encase the entire conduit from bld#1 gear to the brick wall, my AHJ would have considered that as "inside the building" once it terminated within building 1 gear.

In my opinion, the IBC code classifying it as a different building isn't relevant at all with the exception of not grouping service disconnects in one location.

Above all, if you did get the AHJ to sign off, Id imagine you would need BLD2 disconnect on the other side of the wall unless encased in concrete the remainder of the distance.
 
hhsting said:
No you are still not following. The concrete encased is between buildings i.e firewall itself. As soon as the feeders enter second building feeders are Not concrete encased.
Click to expand...
230.70 A (1). That distance you're suggesting, from brick wall to BLD2 gear, isn't "inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors".
 
WA_Sparky said:
230.70 A (1). That distance you're suggesting, from brick wall to BLD2 gear, isn't "inside nearest the point of entrance of the service conductors".
Click to expand...

These are not service conductors. These are feeders. 230 apply only to service cables unless 225 has specific section in 230 it refers to.
 
It is seemingly a lot easier to pinpoint requirements on separate non-attached structures than attached "buildings" and multiple occupancy buildings. I have found enforcement of Art 215, 225 and 230 varies from one jurisdiction to another when it comes to multiple occupancy partly due to rules allowing "by permission". You have a prime example here where technically you have a situation where requirements vary simply due to feeders being inside or outside the same structure (and if they were "service" is it equally confusing)
In fairness to folks quoting the job or installing the job, you need to run these by your AHJ to make the decision for your jurisdiction on what is acceptable there.
Keep in mind, if you have engineered drawings, questioning them is certainly acceptable but varying from them opens you up to liability.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top