para 110.26(F)
- Thread starter srmoran
- Start date
- Status
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: para 110.26(F)
The sprinkler protection is permitted to encroach on this space however the piping and sprinkler head itself cannot. So basically, the water spray can be directed or be placed where it will enter this space. See (c) to this section.
The sprinkler protection is permitted to encroach on this space however the piping and sprinkler head itself cannot. So basically, the water spray can be directed or be placed where it will enter this space. See (c) to this section.
Re: para 110.26(F)
I wish there was an exception for adding panels to an existing space. To really comply with this section, I usually need a building addition to install a NQOD panel.
Either that, or mount the panels on the floor.
Pipefitters and HVAC guys take all the space they can. I have a picture I wish I could share.
Steve
I wish there was an exception for adding panels to an existing space. To really comply with this section, I usually need a building addition to install a NQOD panel.
Either that, or mount the panels on the floor.
Pipefitters and HVAC guys take all the space they can. I have a picture I wish I could share.
Steve
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: para 110.26(F)
I don't understand this statement. Could you explain? I think you can always install a panel above or below another panel. You might have an interesting time with the conduit runs, but 110.26(F) would not enter into the picture. The "dedicated space" begins at the front of the panel, not at the wall.
Re: para 110.26(F)
Charlie:
We are talking about the dedicated space required above a panel, right? Not the working space in front of the panel. If the panel is aginst the wall, the equipment space would start at the wall.
So if I need to add a new panel in an equipment room, there is usually nowhere in the entire room that has a 6"x20" (approx. size of the top of a small panel) square that is clear from where the top of a panel should be to 6' above that.
For example, the top of a panel usually gets mounted at about 6' above the floor. By the time you get to 9' above the floor, you are in a jungle of existing pipes.
Steve
Charlie:
We are talking about the dedicated space required above a panel, right? Not the working space in front of the panel. If the panel is aginst the wall, the equipment space would start at the wall.
So if I need to add a new panel in an equipment room, there is usually nowhere in the entire room that has a 6"x20" (approx. size of the top of a small panel) square that is clear from where the top of a panel should be to 6' above that.
For example, the top of a panel usually gets mounted at about 6' above the floor. By the time you get to 9' above the floor, you are in a jungle of existing pipes.
Steve
Re: para 110.26(F)
This is the first picture I have posted, so I hope it works.
Pipefitters
So much for equipment space. Trying to get 6' when you are lucky to get 6".
Steve
[ January 24, 2006, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: steve66 ]
This is the first picture I have posted, so I hope it works.
Pipefitters
So much for equipment space. Trying to get 6' when you are lucky to get 6".
Steve
[ January 24, 2006, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: steve66 ]
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician (retired)
Re: para 110.26(F)
Nice photo Steve. Violation or not, this is a very common installation practice. I see it all of the time in large buildings. Guess that the inspectors aren't really enforcing the 6' requirement.
Nice photo Steve. Violation or not, this is a very common installation practice. I see it all of the time in large buildings. Guess that the inspectors aren't really enforcing the 6' requirement.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: para 110.26(F)
I agree with Trevor and add that I @#*% hate drip pans!
Try to get more raceways into that MCC without compromising that drip pan. :roll:
I agree with Trevor and add that I @#*% hate drip pans!
Try to get more raceways into that MCC without compromising that drip pan. :roll:
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: para 110.26(F)
OK. I see it now (not having read closely enough he first time
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: para 110.26(F)
Charlie I agree.
[ January 24, 2006, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
Charlie I agree.
[ January 24, 2006, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
Re: para 110.26(F)
Charlie:
I also agree that you can do this from a code standpoint. But it just doesn't see practical to mount a panel above another one. It makes it hard to service and access the breakers. (I'm not the shortest guy in the world, but I'm not the tallest either. I already have trouble reading some of the labels the manufacturer places on the top of some switchboards. The one in the photo is an example. To read the ampacity rating, I had to hold a camera up to the label.)
Anyhow, I guess my point is that if the code allowed only 3' above the panel for existing spaces, it would be a lot easier to find good spaces for panels. And I think 3' would be enough for most small panels (maybe 600A or less).
Steve
[ January 25, 2006, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: steve66 ]
Charlie:
I also agree that you can do this from a code standpoint. But it just doesn't see practical to mount a panel above another one. It makes it hard to service and access the breakers. (I'm not the shortest guy in the world, but I'm not the tallest either. I already have trouble reading some of the labels the manufacturer places on the top of some switchboards. The one in the photo is an example. To read the ampacity rating, I had to hold a camera up to the label.)
Anyhow, I guess my point is that if the code allowed only 3' above the panel for existing spaces, it would be a lot easier to find good spaces for panels. And I think 3' would be enough for most small panels (maybe 600A or less).
Steve
[ January 25, 2006, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: steve66 ]
- Status