When is a wireway defined as a pull box?

ESLLC said:
It looks like I'm now being allowed to post photos.
To satisfy the inspector I believe our plan will be to remove the panels and wireway and reinstall with flex in place of the wireway.
Please see the install below:
Click to expand...
I would politely ask him when it becomes a wireway. If the was such a thin as a wireway your picture would be it. Ironically, if you pull the wireways and replace with flex, aren't you violating the code that says the raceway must be in place prior to installing the conductors. I am with the person who said this is a dick move.
 
jim dungar said:
To me, if there are conduits/nipples entering and exiting the item, for the purpose of rerouting conductors it is a pull box. If the item is connected with "panel adapters" or used to marshal conductors in a common raceway it is a wireway.

If there was several feet between the subject enclosure and the panelboards, would the OP still consider it a wireway?
Click to expand...
I would surmise that if the installation in the picture is not intended to be an acceptable installation, then 376.23(A) would not be a code section. In fact, wireways just shouldn't exist.
 
Strathead said:
I would surmise that if the installation in the picture is not intended to be an acceptable installation, then 376.23(A) would not be a code section. In fact, wireways just shouldn't exist.
Click to expand...
There are lots of applications for wireways where the conductors are smaller than 4 AWG and none of this is an issue.
 
In reality I side with the inspector. I never wanted to open that can of worms as the original install is so commonplace in this area.
It certainly seems the possibility of conductor damage is as great or greater on a wireway than a properly sized pull box.
It would be great if the Code made some clarification such as exempting the conductors from 314 requirements if they are laid in as opposed to being puilled
 
augie47 said:
In reality I side with the inspector. I never wanted to open that can of worms as the original install is so commonplace in this area.
It certainly seems the possibility of conductor damage is as great or greater on a wireway than a properly sized pull box.
It would be great if the Code made some clarification such as exempting the conductors from 314 requirements if they are laid in as opposed to being puilled
Click to expand...
So you look at that pic the OP posted and what problem with the install?
 
For this specific install I agree with Rob in Post 15. He certainly could and likely did pull straight into the panel and I would certainly not make him change it after the pull. That said, I feel in many cases 314 should be applied.
 
wwhitney said:
Looking at the letter of 314.28 and 376.23, it seems clear to me that the inspector is technically correct, unless you want to argue that the wireway is not being used as a pull box, because the conductors get pushed from the wireway into the enclosures just above. [Also, the difference between the 4" required by 376.23(A) for deflection of 3/0 conductors, and the 20" required by 376.23(B) seems oddly large.]

So I would like to understand why from a practical point of view this requirement is unreasonable. If the conduits exiting the top of the wireway were 10' long instead of a few inches (move the panelboards up a story), would the 20" requirement now seem reasonable? If so, what aspect of having the enclosures just a few inches above the wireway makes the difference?

Perhaps 314.28 needs an exception for pull boxes located sufficiently close to the equipment in which the conductors are terminated.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I believe 366 is where you need to be. I did some reading of information in the NEC Handbook today in 366 and it really opened my eyes wider on this topic. After that reading I can't imagine how this inspector can stand by the correction he has made.
 
ESLLC said:
I believe 366 is where you need to be. I did some reading of information in the NEC Handbook today in 366 and it really opened my eyes wider on this topic. After that reading I can't imagine how this inspector can stand by the correction he has made.
Click to expand...
Article 366 Auxiliary Gutters are very rare. If the item in question is connected to the panel via a nipple, it is an Article 376 Wireway installation and not an Article 366 installation.
 
CoolWill said:
I think I would make this inspector beat me in a fist fight before I changed that. I would do everything in my power to leave it. Go over his head. Get the state involved. Go to court.
Click to expand...
So far I've been through the inspector, his lead, his supervisor and one of the WA State technical specialists to the State Chief Inspector.
 
wwhitney said:
The general consensus here is that a wireway/auxilliary gutter falls under 376 when it is connected to enclosure via other raceways, and it falls under 366 if you butt it up to the enclosure and cut out a large window in each to pass conductors between them.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Where do you find the language that differentiates the two? I think I missed that.
 
A few general comments and questions if you don't mind. I probably would have planned the installation without the wire way. I don't really see what purpose it serves. Seems to just result in more parts and more labor. Is there a reason you did it this way?

Bonding is a little bit tricky too. I don't think you can just run a single bonding jumper through one of the raceways of each panel. How are you planning to bond it? If the wire way was used (and ignoring the sizing issue) I probably would have terminated the EGC's on a bar in the wire way, and used a metal nipple between the wire way and the cabinets.
 
electrofelon said:
A few general comments and questions if you don't mind. I probably would have planned the installation without the wire way. I don't really see what purpose it serves. Seems to just result in more parts and more labor. Is there a reason you did it this way?

Bonding is a little bit tricky too. I don't think you can just run a single bonding jumper through one of the raceways of each panel. How are you planning to bond it? If the wire way was used (and ignoring the sizing issue) I probably would have terminated the EGC's on a bar in the wire way, and used a metal nipple between the wire way and the cabinets.
Click to expand...
This project schedule is pretty condensed. We were installing under slab panel feeder conduits prior to the distribution panels configuration being finalized. With uncertain targets at that point we ran a single stack row of conduits knowing that a wireway would allow us the flexibility later that would likely be needed.
Great question on the bonding. I've not talked with our foreman about his plan for bonding so I really don't know what he has in mind at this point.
 
ESLLC said:
Where do you find the language that differentiates the two? I think I missed that.
Click to expand...
I guess the definition of Auxilliary Gutter in 366.2? The last sentence really sounds like an auxilliary gutter is an expansion of the panelboard enclosure, particularly the part about laying in conductors after the enclosures are installed. Seems like you don't "lay in" conductors through a nipple.

But others may have a better answer than this.

Cheers, Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top