Pull Box

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.

dcspector

Senior Member
Location
Burke, Virginia
What I have here are several pull boxes 36x36 and larger anywhere from 12" to 3' above finished floor(AFF) (In a parking Garage) The 4" RNC stub ups from below slab are grouped so close together the EC removed the bottom of the pull boxes due to using a knock out and installing connectors would not work.Also, the EMT worked out great from the top (Big surprise). There was a thread on this a while back and I could not find it. I realize that 314.17(A) is a bit of a stretch. However, what are your thoughts?
 
Greg, 300.10 would come to play.

I remember a "Hot Shot Know it All" electrician working for the same company as me once roughed a mechanical room slab in this way, after a week of chiping concrete he finally decided he would move on and leave it to someone else to finish.

Roger
 
roger said:
Greg, 300.10 would come to play.

I remember a "Hot Shot Know it All" electrician working for the same company as me once roughed a mechanical room slab in this way, after a week of chiping concrete he finally decided he would move on and leave it to someone else to finish.

Roger


Would that section apply to RNC?
 
Greg, I'm sorry, I read RMC, I guess I need new glasses. :(

Roger
 
Violation.

300.12 and specifically the last sentence of 314.17(B).

Poor roughing in work by the EC is no reason to let them slide on this.

Now that said..perhaps bonding busings and concrete encasing the stub ups all the way from the floor to the bottom of the can would meet the equivalent objectives mentioned in 90.4?
 
roger said:
Greg, I'm sorry, I read RMC,

I was thinking RMC as well, I had not imagined using PVC out of the floor in a parking garage.


I guess I need new glasses.

I will just increase the text size on my screen...of course soon only one word will be displayed at a time. :D
 
iwire said:
I will just increase the text size on my screen...of course soon only one word will be displayed at a time. :D

Somehow that makes me feel alot better. :D

Roger
 
iwire said:
Violation.

300.12 and specifically the last sentence of 314.17(B).

Poor roughing in work by the EC is no reason to let them slide on this.

Now that said..perhaps bonding busings and concrete encasing the stub ups all the way from the floor to the bottom of the can would meet the equivalent objectives mentioned in 90.4?

Bob, agree about poor slab R/I

I was ripping pages out looking for the articles you quoted 300.12 and 314.17(B) Also, I have not cited this as of yet. I wanted to speak to Ya'll on the Forum first. Most of my posts on this Forum have come from this one particular project here. It has been a struggle and an education.
 
roger said:
Greg, I'm sorry, I read RMC, I guess I need new glasses. :(

Roger

Roger, don't feel bad you do not need glasses. PVC stub ups do not make sense in a parking garage. Yes, that has been cited also, subject to severe physical damage.
 
iwire said:
Violation.

...specifically the last sentence of 314.17(B).
How about the next to last sentance in 314.17(B)?
Except as provided in 300.15(C), the wiring shall be firmly secured to the box or conduit body.

300.15(C)
Protection.
A box or conduit body shall not be required where cables enter or exit from conduit or tubing that is used to provide cable support or protection against physical damage. A fitting shall be provided on the end(s) of the conduit or tubing to protect the cable from abrasion.

I've seen gutters and such with the bottoms compeletey removed to allow the conduit entry from slab - the boxes were basically set on the slab.

Does 300.15(C) allow this practice?

EDIT:
reading on more....300.15(C) doesn't seem to apply...
 
Last edited:
I ran into a similar situation a couple of years back. The section in the code used to cite the contractor was 314.17(B), specifically the last sentence.
This case went to State arbitration, and the State ruling came down that the conduit/raceway is required to be mechanically connected to the enclosure.


I have pictures, I will post them.
 
ChesterSchoolOct2703064.jpg




ChesterSchoolOct2703036.jpg



ChesterSchoolOct2703035.jpg
 
So I assume that if the installation above with the galvanized box sitting on the floor fails that you also fail all open bottom switch gear? :D

Kidding aside what is the difference?

Where is the exception that allows open bottom switch gear.

Personally I would not have called for inspection with the cans in picture 2 and 3 looking like that.

I might have cut them open like that but by the time the inspector came to look I would have closed the hole up with similar metal.
 
dcspector said:
Most of my posts on this Forum have come from this one particular project here. It has been a struggle and an education.

You joined the Forum 1 year ago. What is this project?
 
chris kennedy said:
You joined the Forum 1 year ago. What is this project?

Chris,

It is the largest Multi Use Hi Rise facility in DC, can't say the name of it. I inspect multiple hi rises all week long but spend a good 3 hours per day at this one in particular. Completion estimated around June of 08'
 
iwire said:
So I assume that if the installation above with the galvanized box sitting on the floor fails that you also fail all open bottom switch gear? :D

Kidding aside what is the difference?

Where is the exception that allows open bottom switch gear.

Personally I would not have called for inspection with the cans in picture 2 and 3 looking like that.

I might have cut them open like that but by the time the inspector came to look I would have closed the hole up with similar metal.


Listing and labeling.
Open bottom switchgear are purposely designed for such installations.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Listing and labeling.
Open bottom switchgear are purposely designed for such installations.

Pierre, where does the NEC say that?

Normally the code section will say 'you can't do X unless the equipment is listed for doing X'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top