Using Cable and Twist locks on a motor

Status
Not open for further replies.

prmmelp

New member
We are manufacturing a small packaged pump system (approximately 300-500 units per year) for a major fast food chain. The pump is connected to a universal AC Tech SMV drive which is setup for the unit to receive single phase or 3 phase power . The pump is 2HP, 3phase, 230VAC. We will be shipping the pump, motor, drive and electrical components to a final plumbing packager. In order to remove the requirement of others making terminations in the motor box and drive, we would like to provide a flexible cable from the motor to the drive. The cable would be about 36-48" and there would be a 4wire 230V 3phase twist lock in between. We would terminate the motor and the drive connections to the motor. We then would like to run a short piece of cable about 12" to a 2 gang bell box and affix a WP plate. This allows us to also terminate the feed connections to the drive and now the electrician only has to terminate inside the bell box. We were looking at an SO or SOOW type cable to do the job. It has now come to our attention that we may have code issues. Can anyone please help to identify a clear exception or code that will allow the cord. The twist lock was also added as it adds a servicability factor to the motor. Also, lastly, we are a UL listed shop and we can certify to UL73 and NFPA 70.

Any help is greatly appreciated. :roll:
 
The NEC does not allow SO or SOOW portable cord to be used in place of building wiring. See 400.8. My experience is this cable insulation dries out and cracks after 5+ years.
Why not use LTF NM conduit?
Is your package assembly listed as a unit? If so then you would comply with the listing requirements, and that may or may not allow portable cord.
In my state this type of equipment would have to be listed.
 
In my state this type of equipment would have to be listed.

same here.
Locally, if it were UL lsited with the cord and plug it would be accepted under it's UL (NRTL) tag.
Otherwise, I again agree with tom that it would not meet NEC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top