Realistic Addition to 110.26(A)(3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

ibew441dc

Senior Member
2008 NEC said:
110.26(A)(3) Height of Working Space. The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 110.26(E). Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment.
IBEW441DC said:

110.26(A)(3) Height of Working Space.
The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 110.26(E). Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment.
Structural pads, not exceeding 102mm (4 in.) in height, designed to elevate switchboards, motor control centers, and cabinets, shall be permitted to extend not more than 150mm (6 in.) beyond the front of electrical equipment.
Bold Text = Addition
Italic Text = Unchanged Language

Substantiation- Work in Progress:grin:
 

ibew441dc

Senior Member
How's this for starters?

How's this for starters?

Now, I'd think the CMP would want some substatiation to go with that. Got any?
Substatiation
Pads designed to limit the intrusion of liquid or loose debri, should be able extend past the equipment if necessary to maintain the pads structural integrity.

(note- drilling holes to close to the edge of a pad is likely to damage the strength and shape of the pad.)
 
Last edited:
Daniel
I think you will need to do better than that.
Sometimes it is good to present a proposal, to see the CMP's response, it is almost as good as having a positive result.


But, your wording may not even make it past the Style Manual axe.
 

ibew441dc

Senior Member
Daniel
I think you will need to do better than that.
Sometimes it is good to present a proposal, to see the CMP's response, it is almost as good as having a positive result.


But, your wording may not even make it past the Style Manual axe.

Yeah, I know.........I'm very confident with the rules and intent of 110.26 as a whole. I see this violation all the time and really don't have a problem with it myself.

BTW which part may IYO wouldn't make it past the axe? The new lango or the substantiation.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Dan,
Are you keeping a file of these proposals so you can submit them no later than the first Friday in November, 2011?

The substantiation would be to make the code match the standard installation practices. This substantiation has been used successfully many times to make the code match what is really happening out in the real world.

I would eliminate the word "Structure" and reduce the projection to 3 or 4 inches in front of the equipment.
 

ibew441dc

Senior Member
Dan,
Are you keeping a file of these proposals so you can submit them no later than the first Friday in November, 2011?
Only record so far is here on the Forum:smile:.What is the earliest they can be sent?

The substantiation would be to make the code match the standard installation practices. This substantiation has been used successfully many times to make the code match what is really happening out in the real world.
Noted.....Thanks:smile:

I would eliminate the word "Structure" and reduce the projection to 3 or 4 inches in front of the equipment.

I feel the need to specify the "Pad", due to the potential, and unintended misinterpretation of the rule. I agree "Structural" may not be the best word. Do you have any suggestions? I was thinking Concrete.

I'm glad you brought the reduction of the projection up. Although I would agree that 3'' should and typically is the max, I have seen it as big as 6''.

(My Experience)The 6'' projection did not create an obstacle that I feel was dangerous (ie. tripping hazard) As it actually was a good place to keep my tools visual and in front of me;). Also the 6'' measurement was intended to match the already accepted dimension for associated electrical equipment.

[note- I am not for pads that project any distance that are higher than 4'' (actually 3-1/2'', flip a 2x4 on its side)]
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I think it is a good proposal, the 6" matches with the existing allowance for obstructions. Having 6" for some obstructions and 4" for other obstructions would only lead to confusion in my opinion.

I agree with Don about the substantiation should include that it is a long established practice.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
[note- I am not for pads that project any distance that are higher than 4'' (actually 3-1/2'', flip a 2x4 on its side)]
I agree and normally go that way, but sometimes that 3-1/2" just won't get the job done.

Here is the last pad I made, they started out as 2" x 8"s.

 

ibew441dc

Senior Member
110.26(A)(3)---Addition---Revision

110.26(A)(3)---Addition---Revision

With some help...I tuned it up a bit....

IBEW441DC said:
110.26(A)(3) Height of Working Space.
The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 110.26(E). Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment. Concrete pads, not exceeding 102mm (4 in.) in height, designed to elevate switchboards, motor control centers, and cabinets, shall be permitted to extend not more than 150mm (6 in.) beyond the front of electrical equipment.

Substantiation: Correlate the Code to match standard installation practices.
 

ibew441dc

Senior Member
Added Fine Print Note

Added Fine Print Note

With some help...I tuned it up a bit....
IBEW441DC said:
110.26(A)(3) Height of Working Space.
The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 110.26(E). Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment. Concrete pads, not exceeding 102mm (4 in.) in height, designed to elevate switchboards, motor control centers, and cabinets, shall be permitted to extend not more than 150mm (6 in.) beyond the front of electrical equipment.

Substantiation: Correlate the Code to match standard installation practices.
IBEW441dc said:
FPN: Concrete pads exceeding 102mm (4 in.) in height, and projecting not more than 150mm (6 in.) beyond the front of switchboards, motor control centers, and cabinets, may permitted only when special permission is granted by the Authority Having Jurisdiction.
I think this fine print note would be appropriate for special cases such as IWIRE's.
 
Last edited:

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
I don't know when the earliest date that you can send proposals in for the 2014 code. I would assume it would be after June 2010 when the 2011 code will be adopted at the NFPA annual meeting.
 

chris kennedy

Senior Member
Location
Miami Fla.
Occupation
60 yr old tool twisting electrician
I would eliminate the word "Structure" and reduce the projection to 3 or 4 inches in front of the equipment.
The common terminology for these are 'Housekeeping Pads'. I like this proposal also and agree with Dan and Bob that 6" is the way to go. FWIW, I order mine or pour mine 4" high and 4" beyond the footprint of the gear.
 
With some help...I tuned it up a bit....
  • 'housekeeping pads' as Chris suggested may not necessarily be made of concrete.
  • 'free standing electrical enclosures' would be an inlcusive term.
Make sure that the wording clearly indicate that the pad is not a requirement, but the paragraph is intended to put limits when they are used. Both height and extention beyond the cabinet outline should be limited to 3".
 

ibew441dc

Senior Member
Fine Tuning!

Fine Tuning!

FPNs can't contain requirements or permissions, per the style manual.
Ryan_618, Thanks for pointing that out:smile:

Here is what I came up with, and supersedes all of my previous proposal suggestions.

Originally Posted by IBEW441DC
110.26(A)(3) Height of Working Space.
The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 110.26(E). Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment. Approved concrete pads, designed to elevate switchboards, motor control centers, and cabinets, shall be permitted to extend not more than 150mm (6 in.) beyond the front of electrical equipment.
Substantiation: Correlate the Code to match standard installation practices.
(Bold/Italic is the suggested addition to 110.26(A)(3)

As IWIRE pointed out, ( and I agree :smile:),a pad greater than 4" in height in many cases may be appropriate. IMO the pad heights only restriction would be by the AHJ, hence adding the appropriate term "Approved".
 

ibew441dc

Senior Member
'housekeeping pads' as Chris suggested may not necessarily be made of concrete.
The intention of this rule is to specifically apply to concrete pads.

'free standing electrical enclosures' would be an inlcusive term.
The intention of this rule is to include applicable enclosures that are free standing, as well as applicable enclosures that are not free standing


Make sure that the wording clearly indicate that the pad is not a requirement, but the paragraph is intended to put limits when they are used.
read it again "shall be permitted"

Both height and extention beyond the cabinet outline should be limited to 3".
I disagree...it is very common for a pad to be built using a 2X4 , with the 4 side up, which is actually 3-1/2''. As pointed throughout this thread the appropriate height may not be the same in all installations. As far as its projection, IMO 6'' would be appropriate, and would decrease any confusion with the 6" allowance for associated electrical equipment rule.

I know you were commenting on a past post of mine,but have since edited it based upon input by others. It is as follows.....
Originally Posted by IBEW441DC
110.26(A)(3) Height of Working Space.
The work space shall be clear and extend from the grade, floor, or platform to the height required by 110.26(E). Within the height requirements of this section, other equipment that is associated with the electrical installation and is located above or below the electrical equipment shall be permitted to extend not more than 150 mm (6 in.) beyond the front of the electrical equipment. Approved concrete pads, designed to elevate switchboards, motor control centers, and cabinets, shall be permitted to extend not more than 150mm (6 in.) beyond the front of electrical equipment.
Substantiation: Correlate the Code to match standard installation practices.
 

ryan_618

Senior Member
I don't think using the words "houskeeping pad" would be a problem. I think the CMP will read it and understand what is being refered to, then tweak the language. That or they will reject it and include in the panel statement that they don't like those words, at which time you can submit a comment to change the wording and address the rest of the panel statement.
 
The intention of this rule is to specifically apply to concrete pads.
Why limit it? The objective is to limit the height and horizontal intereference of anything that may be placed underneath of an electrical enclosure.



The intention of this rule is to include applicable enclosures that are free standing, as well as applicable enclosures that are not free standing
So you're saying it is applicable to wall mounted equipment? "Free standing" is a vernacular used to identify equipment that requires to be placed on the floor.

read it again "shall be permitted"
Yep, that will do it.

I disagree...it is very common for a pad to be built using a 2X4 , with the 4 side up, which is actually 3-1/2''. As pointed throughout this thread the appropriate height may not be the same in all installations. As far as its projection, IMO 6'' would be appropriate, and would decrease any confusion with the 6" allowance for associated electrical equipment rule.
3.5" should not be a problem, but I believe that a limit should be placed to make sure that the pad height does not create additional hazard by putting the operators out of reach. Remember that the EE is constructed for user access. As far as the horizontal limit, it needs to be coordinated with the OSHA requirements as to what constitutes unobstructed walking surface.

I know you were commenting on a past post of mine,but have since edited it based upon input by others. It is as follows.....
Thank you.
 

ibew441dc

Senior Member
Why limit it? The objective is to limit the height and horizontal intereference of anything that may be placed underneath of an electrical enclosure.
It should be limited to approved concrete pads, designed to elevate and support the appropriate enclosure and nothing else. The objective is to correlate the Code to permit a standard trade practice, not to suggest that "anything" may be placed beneath an enclosure and/or project outward.


So you're saying it is applicable to wall mounted equipment? "Free standing" is a vernacular used to identify equipment that requires to be placed on the floor.
:smile:Yes that is precisely what I am saying. One example would be a larger sized Square D, I-line 800amp panelboard installed in an appropriate cabinet, surface mounted against a wall on the floor. The cabinet dimensions are 9-1/2'' deep 91'' high and 32'' inches wide. I speak from personal experience, they are very heavy and can be installed surface or flush mount and are not freestanding. There is no restriction as to how low or high the cabinet can be installed (only that that the highest breaker/switch is not above 6'7''). Anyone familiar with I-Line will know that there is typically about 22'' of extra wire space above the highest breaker and below the lowest. That being said you could easily raise the equipment up 10'' off the floor and still be code compliant. The size and weight would already prompt one to install it as low as they could, but may not want it directly on the floor. An approved concrete pad designed to elevate and support the enclosure would serve a similar purpose as to a freestanding piece of equipment.



3.5" should not be a problem, but I believe that a limit should be placed to make sure that the pad height does not create additional hazard by putting the operators out of reach. Remember that the EE is constructed for user access. As far as the horizontal limit, it needs to be coordinated with the OSHA requirements as to what constitutes unobstructed walking surface.
Obviously if one constructed a pad that caused the equipment to be elevated too high would be a violation of other rules. BTW What are the OSHA requirements:roll: If they applied to the pads they would definitely apply to a 12'' deep wireway located on the floor beneath a 6'' deep cabinet which the NEC permits.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top