RE ART 409

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aleman

Aleman

Senior Member
Location
Southern Ca, USA
Hey folks here's a question for you.

Per Article 409.104, looking at the 2011 NEC,

409.104 Wiring Space.
(A) General. Industrial control panel enclosures shall not
be used as junction boxes, auxiliary gutters, or raceways for
conductors feeding through or tapping off to other switches
or overcurrent devices or other equipment, unless the conductors
fill less than 40 percent of the cross-sectional area of the
wiring space. In addition, the conductors, splices, and taps
shall not fill the wiring space at any cross section to more than
75 percent of the cross-sectional area of that space.

One of our electricians wants to run a 120VAC circuit through a control panel, in SOOW cable, that is fed from an external source. This will be then routed through to an outlet outside of the panel. Basically using the panel as a raceway. I said no but need to show him why. So when looking at ART 409, as written above...it appears that the reason to NOT use a control panel as a gutter or raceway is space dependent. If looked at from the space dependent point of view, he would be able to run the cable through the panel. I have always been taught that control panels cannot be used as raceways but this is the first time I really read the article. And it looks to present an option to use the panel as a raceway.
 
You answered your own question, it is in fact NEC permitted to use it for a raceway

However the use of SOOW cable may be a violation in itself.

Check out 400.7 and 400.8 and see what you think.
 
This is basically the same wording as for panel enclosures. Usually space is not an issue however I am not sure that you can use rubber cord as you intend to do.
 
I think it is code acceptable to run unrelated conductors through an ICP.

Whether it is a good idea is something else. I think it is a moderately bad idea since the power to those conductors won't be shut off by the ICP disconnecting means, and they won't be found on the ICP drawing.
 
Also I am surprised that art. 409 does not include this statement that is art. 312.8

(3) A warning label complying with 110.21(B) is applied
to the enclosure that identifies the closest disconnecting
means for any feed-through conductors
Click to expand...
 
Thanks guys. The reason he wants to run SOOW cable is that he will be using existing open pipe chases that route into the cabinet. There will be no exposed connections or splices in the panel, just a cable run. Looking at 300.3 makes my eyes cross but I don't see anything that prohibits the SO cable. I still don't like the idea but I can't tell him that what he wants to do is not code. In my opinion it's not the way it should be done but looks to be ok codewise.
 
Aleman said:
Thanks guys. The reason he wants to run SOOW cable is that he will be using existing open pipe chases that route into the cabinet.
Click to expand...

Again, the SO cord is likely a violation for this application.

The details of the installation make all the difference, a look at 400.7 and 400.8 could be enlightening. Don't overlook 400.7(B) if it turns out cord is acceptable you may have use a plug and receptacle.
 
Thanks for pointing 400.7 and 400.8. Where I work flexible cables are used everywhere; pumps, motors mostly. Most are run through pipe chases or tray.
So we have some grey areas where I work but in my industry this is how things are built in many places. For example a skid with pumps, where the motor cables run
from panel to motor in cable tray or open pipe, and then drop to the motor. That is typical.

I have decided to nix the cable run through the control panel as I found he intends to run through 3 separate panels. This is to avoid running pipe. A poor excuse
in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top