Party wall

[hhsting]

IDK for certain on that. 2 inch encasement of service conductors or other similar situations like being in a vault generally is acceptable to consider them outside the building. But this mostly pertains to electrical considerations and not everything else that other building codes uses to consides a separate building or effective equivalent.

The 2 inch concrete encased you mentioned is in 230.6. Scope of NEC 2014 section 230 below for service conductors and equipment for control and protection of services. I have feeders inside buildings. This section is Not for feeders. I don’t see any section like that for feeders or outside feeders. Their is not outside definition either

 

[electrofelon]

The 2 inch concrete encased you mentioned is in 230.6. Scope of NEC 2014 section 230 below for service conductors and equipment for control and protection of services. This section is Not for feeders. I don’t see any section like that for feeders or outside feeders. Their is not outside definition either

FWIW, 230.6 is mentioned in 240.21(B)(5) and 240.21(C)(4)

 

[hhsting]

FWIW, 230.6 is mentioned in 240.21(B)(5) and 240.21(C)(4)

I don’t understand. How it applies here meter stacks have breakers right where tap is and could be 10 feet or 25 feet rule inside since meter stacks on first floor and penetration all the way up attic and there is no transformers involved. There is no other tap where penetration is made

They should really have amended the scope of 230. Failure to do so causes confusion in code. Should have mentioned 240 as well in scope


Is their similar section in section 225 or feeders section 215 going back to 230.6?

 

[kwired]

I think you are correct, article 225 does not apply to your situation. I am not sure if that is what the intent was, but that is the way I read it. As Kwired said, I suppose one could argue that if you are exiting one building and entering another, then at some point you are "outside" of one of the buildings

It is pretty much the way it has been handled here for as long as I have been in the trade.

Add a somewhat major addition to a school building - EI's allow separate service to that new building, presuming it has 2 hour separation from the existing, which building/fire codes will require this anyway. they will not let you run additional branch circuits/feeders between the two "buildings" though, and would cite 225 part II sections as the reason.

Or downtown district and one business decides to purchase the building next door and knock a hole in the wall to make more space. Now if you leave most things electrical as is - you have made two buildings into one and now have two services to that one building and art 230 violations. If you put a proper fire door between then it is still two buildings, but don't run branch circuits or feeders between them either.

 

[electrofelon]

I don’t understand. How it applies here meter stacks have breakers right where tap is and could be 10 feet or 25 feet rule inside since meter stacks on first floor and penetration all the way up attic and there is no transformers involved. There is no other tap where penetration is made

They should really have amended the scope of 230. Failure to do so causes confusion in code. Should have mentioned 240 as well in scope


Is their similar section in section 225 or feeders section 215 going back to 230.6?

I just meant that if your conductors went between buildings in a manner covered by 230.6 then that could be an argument that your feeders are "outside". I Don't think that applies to your specific situation, I shouldn't have even mentioned it.

 

[hhsting]

It is pretty much the way it has been handled here for as long as I have been in the trade.

Add a somewhat major addition to a school building - EI's allow separate service to that new building, presuming it has 2 hour separation from the existing, which building/fire codes will require this anyway. they will not let you run additional branch circuits/feeders between the two "buildings" though, and would cite 225 part II sections as the reason.

Or downtown district and one business decides to purchase the building next door and knock a hole in the wall to make more space. Now if you leave most things electrical as is - you have made two buildings into one and now have two services to that one building and art 230 violations. If you put a proper fire door between then it is still two buildings, but don't run branch circuits or feeders between them either.

I can see that if buildings owned by different owners. So in your area they would Not let you run feeder to another building even though buildings are owned by same owner and in like same campus, property, nearby first building? Mandatory to have separate service for each?

 

[hhsting]

I just meant that if your conductors went between buildings in a manner covered by 230.6 then that could be an argument that your feeders are "outside". I Don't think that applies to your specific situation, I shouldn't have even mentioned it.

But the code specifically has to refer back to 230.6 in order for that to apply. Otherwise how can one assume it still applies if it does not refer back and scope of work in that section says service conductors.

 

[kwired]

I don’t understand. How it applies here meter stacks have breakers right where tap is and could be 10 feet or 25 feet rule inside since meter stacks on first floor and penetration all the way up attic and there is no transformers involved. There is no other tap where penetration is made

They should really have amended the scope of 230. Failure to do so causes confusion in code. Should have mentioned 240 as well in scope


Is their similar section in section 225 or feeders section 215 going back to 230.6?

There is no code section directly allowing a feeder to be considered outside the building I believe I said you may be able to have it considered outside (based on some other situations that are similar) and not that it absolutely is permitted. Is an AHJ call though.

OK my exact wording was " and those feeders might be effectively considered "outside the building"" pretty close I guess.

 

[electrofelon]

But the code specifically has to refer back to 230.6 in order for that to apply. Otherwise how can one assume it still applies if it does not refer back and scope of work in that section says service conductors.

I was just pointing out that if the code seems ambiguous (in this case the definition of outside) sometimes you can look to another section for assistance. Although 230.3 is specifically for services, I was pointing out that other non service sections of the code reference it.

 

[hhsting]

I was just pointing out that if the code seems ambiguous (in this case the definition of outside) sometimes you can look to another section for assistance. Although 230.3 is specifically for services, I was pointing out that other non service sections of the code reference it.

Their is nothing in 225 or 215 being referenced to 230.6 like that for 240 specifically referencing. Without referencing 230.6 specifically 225 or 215 I don’t buy that one can assume it applies to 225 or 215. It’s not spelled out in code

 

[kwired]

Their is nothing in 225 or 215 being referenced to 230.6 like that for 240 specifically referencing. Without referencing 230.6 specifically 225 or 215 I don’t buy that one can assume it applies to 225 or 215. It’s not spelled out in code

Maybe so. But if the intent here is to consider these to be separate buildings then they need to be treated like separate buildings even if there is literally no "outside" between them.

This about has to happen all the time with mini malls, and probably is a little more complex but somewhat the case with malls with an indoor commons area as well.

 

[hhsting]

Maybe so. But if the intent here is to consider these to be separate buildings then they need to be treated like separate buildings even if there is literally no "outside" between them.

This about has to happen all the time with mini malls, and probably is a little more complex but somewhat the case with malls with an indoor commons area as well.

If the intent of code was to apply every where throughout the code they could have definition of what outside is section 100 that applies everywhere in code not just for service conductors or referencing it like they do in 240 specifically. I still don’t buy it.

 

[kwired]

Maybe so. But if the intent here is to consider these to be separate buildings then they need to be treated like separate buildings even if there is literally no "outside" between them.

That means if all the power is at unit 3, and unit 1 feeder(s) pass through unit 2 to get there, that is a situation of conductors supplying one building passing through another. Like I said earlier if building 2 is on fire, firefighters may turn off building 2 supply(ies). But they possibley overlook the fact that building one supply(ies) is passing through building 2. I'm fairly certain this is a part of why these rules are the way they are, you are trying to complicate it by saying there is no "outside" between them even though they are still considered to be separate buildings.

 

[hhsting]

That means if all the power is at unit 3, and unit 1 feeder(s) pass through unit 2 to get there, that is a situation of conductors supplying one building passing through another. Like I said earlier if building 2 is on fire, firefighters may turn off building 2 supply(ies). But they possibley overlook the fact that building one supply(ies) is passing through building 2. I'm fairly certain this is a part of why these rules are the way they are, you are trying to complicate it by saying there is no "outside" between them even though they are still considered to be separate buildings.

What you are saying is from Section 225 which in code says outside. If the intent was separate building it would say that but 225 clearly says outside between bldgs.

Same scenario happens in strip mall fit out you have switchboard in electric room multiple feeders penetrate thru firewalls inside pass thru one tenant to another as well. Each tenant separated by firewalls would be separate buildings.

 

[augie47]

May vary in other jurisdictions... here, if is apartments (building with one owner) the feeders could run through one to another provided they have proper fire rated penetration means on the adjacent walls. (NEC ref: 300.21)
On townhouses or condominiums it is not allowed due to ownership of the individual units.

 

[electrofelon]

May vary in other jurisdictions... here, if is apartments (building with one owner) the feeders could run through one to another provided they have proper fire rated penetration means on the adjacent walls. (NEC ref: 300.21)

I agree here too. I kinda lean towards the NEC not really caring if a building is technically two buildings on paper.

 

[hhsting]

May vary in other jurisdictions... here, if is apartments (building with one owner) the feeders could run through one to another provided they have proper fire rated penetration means on the adjacent walls. (NEC ref: 300.21)
On townhouses or condominiums it is not allowed due to ownership of the individual units.

Someone should write to NEC since IBC says no opening allowed party wall while NEC says one can provide conduit provided they have proper fire rated penetration means. Party wall is a form of fire wall and so their is discrepancy between building code and NEC

 

[kwired]

Someone should write to NEC since IBC says no opening allowed party wall while NEC says one can provide conduit provided they have proper fire rated penetration means. Party wall is a form of fire wall and so their is discrepancy between building code and NEC

I think you answered your own questions here. NEC might allow it but other codes may not.

What you are saying is from Section 225 which in code says outside. If the intent was separate building it would say that but 225 clearly says outside between bldgs.

Same scenario happens in strip mall fit out you have switchboard in electric room multiple feeders penetrate thru firewalls inside pass thru one tenant to another as well. Each tenant separated by firewalls would be separate buildings.

225.1 says "...run on or between buildings, structures or poles..." I think it definitely applies to buildings separated by a fire wall of some sort that allows them to be considered separate buildings.

 

[hhsting]

I think you answered your own questions here. NEC might allow it but other codes may not.

225.1 says "...run on or between buildings, structures or poles..." I think it definitely applies to buildings separated by a fire wall of some sort that allows them to be considered separate buildings.

Nope that’s not what it says. 225.1 says “outside feeder or branch circuits run on or between buildings..” Note the wording in code OUTSIDE between buildings. Does it say between firewalls between buildings? Nope

 

[kwired]

Nope that’s not what it says. 225.1 says “outside feeder or branch circuits run on or between buildings..” Note the wording in code OUTSIDE between buildings

How does you AHJ interpret it? That might be what matters most. I'm pretty certain here they would be looking at 225 part II for feeders like you are describing once they exit one "building" and enter another. The line maybe is blurred some when it is same owner/occupant using the spaces, but if separate owners/occupants they would be pretty strict in calling them separate buildings, particularly if there is service equipment in each of them, then they generally don't allow feeders or branch circuits to run between them, or if deemed absolutely necessary would at least need to be some labeling to identify where additional disconnecting means are located.