Go Back   DIY Chatroom Home Improvement Forum > Home Improvement > Electrical

CLICK HERE AND JOIN OUR COMMUNITY TODAY...IT'S FREE!

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-25-2013, 03:26 PM   #61
Lic Elect/Inspector/CPO
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 369
Share |
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


You should have pay for a code violation. The "MASTER " electricain made the mistake and the violation, therefore he is required to correct the violation on his dime.
Electricait can kill people, burn down buildings. Other trades can cause a flood or inadeqaute heat. I have never seen a person drown in thier house because of faulty plumbing.

NJMarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 03:42 PM   #62
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 94
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Quote:
Originally Posted by NJMarine View Post
You should have pay for a code violation. The "MASTER " electricain made the mistake and the violation, therefore he is required to correct the violation on his dime.
Electricait can kill people, burn down buildings. Other trades can cause a flood or inadeqaute heat. I have never seen a person drown in thier house because of faulty plumbing.
I should have to pay for it? I didn't do it. I hired it out to a legitimate master electrician. Is there anything about this installation that screams 'fire'?

EDIT: I think I misinterpreted your post. Sorry.

Last edited by Bradeno; 02-25-2013 at 05:35 PM.
Bradeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 04:19 PM   #63
UAW SKILLED TRADES
 
Stubbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas
Posts: 4,851
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Did you have any history on the electrician you hired ? Also I think the latter was a typo in the previouos post. I'm really questioning where he got the crazy idea to use conduit like that. I've gotta believe he hasn't done much residential or at least hasn't been inspected much. I'm retired now but in all my years I never entered a residential panel in that manner with romex cable ... it is just hack looking.

The issue is overfill on the conduit that would create too much heat build up. Not very like to be a problem but none the less I would not leave it that way. Look up conduit fill on google. It is a bit more troublesome because it is multi wire cable in the conduit. See this forum thread to get an idea

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=115367

How long is the conduit ?
__________________
" One nice thing about the NEC articles ... you have lots of choices"

Stubbie
Stubbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 05:34 PM   #64
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 94
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubbie View Post
Did you have any history on the electrician you hired ? Also I think the latter was a typo in the previouos post. I'm really questioning where he got the crazy idea to use conduit like that. I've gotta believe he hasn't done much residential or at least hasn't been inspected much. I'm retired now but in all my years I never entered a residential panel in that manner with romex cable ... it is just hack looking.

The issue is overfill on the conduit that would create too much heat build up. Not very like to be a problem but none the less I would not leave it that way. Look up conduit fill on google. It is a bit more troublesome because it is multi wire cable in the conduit. See this forum thread to get an idea

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=115367

How long is the conduit ?
The conduit is about 10.5" from top to bottom and about a 2" ID.

So I am only allowed to fill it 31%?

That seems really conservative. This isn't the way I would have thought to instald the wires in the box, but I didn't think this would be a hazard.
Bradeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 08:04 PM   #65
UAW SKILLED TRADES
 
Stubbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas
Posts: 4,851
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradeno View Post
The conduit is about 10.5" from top to bottom and about a 2" ID.

So I am only allowed to fill it 31%?

That seems really conservative. This isn't the way I would have thought to instald the wires in the box, but I didn't think this would be a hazard.
I honestly don't know if it will be a hazard or not, I don't know how much load in amps your cables might carry.

You can fill it to 40%. The NEC in chapter 9 note 9 allows each romex cable to be treated as one wire... but you must use the diameter of the cable to determined the size of that one wire. So if your installing more than two cables (which you certainly are) and since each cable is treated as one wire you can fill to 40%. It's not an easy calculation for a beginner.

Best thing you can do to have peace of mind is to make the installation code compliant by bringing the cables into the box thru knockouts with nonmetallic or metal cable clamps. Then 12 inches above the panel install a 2x4 or 2x6 or other choice between studs then fasten or staple your cables to it. You can close the hole used by the conduit or maybe reduce it with reducing washers and bring one of your larger awg cables in thru it.
__________________
" One nice thing about the NEC articles ... you have lots of choices"

Stubbie

Last edited by Stubbie; 02-25-2013 at 08:19 PM.
Stubbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2013, 08:35 PM   #66
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 94
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubbie View Post
I honestly don't know if it will be a hazard or not, I don't know how much load in amps your cables might carry.

You can fill it to 40%. The NEC in chapter 9 note 9 allows each romex cable to be treated as one wire... but you must use the diameter of the cable to determined the size of that one wire. So if your installing more than two cables (which you certainly are) and since each cable is treated as one wire you can fill to 40%. It's not an easy calculation for a beginner.

Best thing you can do to have peace of mind is to make the installation code compliant by bringing the cables into the box thru knockouts with nonmetallic or metal cable clamps. Then 12 inches above the panel install a 2x4 or 2x6 or other choice between studs then fasten or staple your cables to it. You can close the hole used by the conduit or maybe reduce it with reducing washers and bring one of your larger awg cables in thru it.
Except that I do not believe I am allowed to touch the box to do such a thing and the electrician would definitely charge another few hundred dollars to come back and redo his work.

Is this something I should go talk to the inspector about for verification, or is it better to just leave it be since he already gave it a pass? I really don't think this is a hazard at all, but I am not an electrician. But the two who saw it didn't see the need to change anything?
Bradeno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 12:00 AM   #67
UAW SKILLED TRADES
 
Stubbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas
Posts: 4,851
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradeno View Post
Except that I do not believe I am allowed to touch the box to do such a thing and the electrician would definitely charge another few hundred dollars to come back and redo his work.

Is this something I should go talk to the inspector about for verification, or is it better to just leave it be since he already gave it a pass? I really don't think this is a hazard at all, but I am not an electrician. But the two who saw it didn't see the need to change anything?

My opinion ... the inspector is wrong to allow it ... period. The installation is a code violation .... I'm surprised an engineer would be so quick to live with something that isn't correct. Some advice ... be sure everything you do in your careeer meets code ..no exceptions .. or you will eventually pay the price. The inspector is going with the odds lets hope the underdog horse doesn't win.
__________________
" One nice thing about the NEC articles ... you have lots of choices"

Stubbie
Stubbie is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Stubbie For This Useful Post:
Jim Port (02-26-2013)
Old 02-26-2013, 12:29 AM   #68
Journeyman Wireman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 90
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


The answer to all of this is so obvious.
Why didn't you just get a master's license and do the job yourself?
It only took me two times to pass the test. Someone as skilled as yourself should get it on the first try!
jbberns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 05:17 AM   #69
Lic Elect/Inspector/CPO
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NJ
Posts: 369
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


At this time I would let it go. The inspector signed off on it. I have seen this type of installation before and it was passed by the inspector. The EC has to show the that the amperge rating of the conductor did not exceed the amperage allowed after derating and proper size conduit was used.
NJMarine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 05:38 AM   #70
Master Electrician
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 463
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bradeno View Post
I am done debating the cost. You can't have a real discussion on a message board about politics, religion, or money and so we will never come to an agreement or compromise on this. And though I understand your point of view, I also realize that plenty of equally skilled and experienced tradesmen make far less for just as much risk and liability. That the city gives electricians an artificial market price on many routine electrical projects that a journeyman could be assumed to do easily is what bothers me.

And I believe a man should be able to do 95% of what ever he wants on his own house on his own land. Just like he should be able to do whatever he wants to his car or his tools or whatever, even though one day he will definitely sell his beat up old car to some poor college kid and buy a new one. That is life.

But, that is just my opinion, and it is superfluous and was in poor taste to bring up in this discussion. That is all I have to say on the subject. My fault. Please, let's not waste anymore bandwidth on it.

Sorry to the one guy for the incorrect homonym for write. Good Lord, thanks for catching that one, it almost got away from me!

Here is a picture of the conduit. The wires in the conduit are all fairly loose and movable and not rubbing, but there are certainly more than 4 in there. Why only 4 allowed? That seems excessively conservative and arbitrary as a number, and I have seen much larger bundles of wires in other tighter situations be considered code. What is improper about this? Does it cause interference?

The inspector has allowed the contractor to keep the conduit (since I would have been charged for removal and reinstallation of all the wiring, he took pity I guess) so long as I install a plumbing access panel into the conduit, even though I was just going to leave it open anyway.
This is close to being a code compliant installation according to 312.5(c), if the following are true:

1) The conduit is shorter than 24"
2) The conductors are not over 60% fill
3) The conductors are secured withing 12" of entering the conduit
4) The sheathing on the cables is continuous down into the loadcenter
5) The conduit is properly secured
6) The conduit leaves the top of a surface mounted loadcenter and does not go above a drop ceiling

The photo is too close to verify the above. The thing that needs to be fixed that I can see is that the entry to the conduit needs to be sealed by an approved method.

Mark
__________________
Licensed Master Electrician
Commonwealth of Virginia
busman is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to busman For This Useful Post:
jbfan (02-26-2013), NJMarine (02-26-2013)
Old 02-26-2013, 08:52 AM   #71
Lic Electrical Inspector
 
electures's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Great Police State of New Jersey
Posts: 1,562
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Quote:
Originally Posted by busman View Post
This is close to being a code compliant installation according to 312.5(c), if the following are true:

1) The conduit is shorter than 24"
2) The conductors are not over 60% fill
3) The conductors are secured withing 12" of entering the conduit
4) The sheathing on the cables is continuous down into the loadcenter
5) The conduit is properly secured
6) The conduit leaves the top of a surface mounted loadcenter and does not go above a drop ceiling

The photo is too close to verify the above. The thing that needs to be fixed that I can see is that the entry to the conduit needs to be sealed by an approved method.

Mark
Actually it is a clear violation of 312.5(C) which states;

(C) Cables. Where cable is used, each cable shall be secured to the cabinet, cutout box, or meter socket enclosure.
Exception: Cables with entirely nonmetallic sheaths shall be permitted to enter the top of a surface-mounted enclosure through one or more nonflexible raceways not less than 450 mm (18 in.) and not more than 3.0 m (10 ft) in length, provided all of the following conditions are met:
(a) Each cable is fastened within 300 mm (12 in.), measured along the sheath, of the outer end of the raceway.
(b) The raceway extends directly above the enclosure and does not penetrate a structural ceiling.
(c) A fitting is provided on each end of the raceway to protect the cabl(s) from abrasion and the fittings remain accessible after installation.
(d) The raceway is sealed or plugged at the outer end using approved means so as to prevent access to the enclosure through the raceway.
(e) The cable sheath is continuous through the raceway and extends into the enclosure beyond the fitting not less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in.).
(f) The raceway is fastened at its outer end and at other points in accordance with the applicable article.
(g) Where installed as conduit or tubing, the allowable cable fill does not exceed that permitted for complete conduit or tubing systems by Table 1 of Chapter 9 of this Code and all applicable notes thereto.
Informational Note: See Table 1 in Chapter 9, including Note 9, for allowable cable fill in circular raceways. See
310.15(B)(3)(a) for required ampacity reductions for multiple cables installed in a common raceway.


AS stated by the OP, the conduit is 10.5" long.
The raceway is not sealed.
The conduit is not large enough for number of cables in it.
And finally, derating has been completely ignored. As best as I can tell from the picture there are twenty seven current carrying conductors total+/_. Derating for 21-30 current carrying conductor is 45%. #14 is rated for 11.25A, #12 is good for 13.5A and #10 is good for 18A. The heat will eventually deteriorate the cable and conductors to the point of a fire hazard.
__________________
All responses based on the 2011 NEC.
If you live in New Jersey click here. All other states click here.
Please check with local, county and state officials as laws may vary.
Sizing motors here. Online motor calculator here. Online calculators here.

Last edited by electures; 02-26-2013 at 09:26 AM.
electures is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 10:18 AM   #72
Master Electrician
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 463
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Quote:
Originally Posted by electures View Post
Actually it is a clear violation of 312.5(C) which states;

(C) Cables. Where cable is used, each cable shall be secured to the cabinet, cutout box, or meter socket enclosure.
Exception: Cables with entirely nonmetallic sheaths shall be permitted to enter the top of a surface-mounted enclosure through one or more nonflexible raceways not less than 450 mm (18 in.) and not more than 3.0 m (10 ft) in length, provided all of the following conditions are met:
(a) Each cable is fastened within 300 mm (12 in.), measured along the sheath, of the outer end of the raceway.
(b) The raceway extends directly above the enclosure and does not penetrate a structural ceiling.
(c) A fitting is provided on each end of the raceway to protect the cabl(s) from abrasion and the fittings remain accessible after installation.
(d) The raceway is sealed or plugged at the outer end using approved means so as to prevent access to the enclosure through the raceway.
(e) The cable sheath is continuous through the raceway and extends into the enclosure beyond the fitting not less than 6 mm (1⁄4 in.).
(f) The raceway is fastened at its outer end and at other points in accordance with the applicable article.
(g) Where installed as conduit or tubing, the allowable cable fill does not exceed that permitted for complete conduit or tubing systems by Table 1 of Chapter 9 of this Code and all applicable notes thereto.
Informational Note: See Table 1 in Chapter 9, including Note 9, for allowable cable fill in circular raceways. See
310.15(B)(3)(a) for required ampacity reductions for multiple cables installed in a common raceway.


AS stated by the OP, the conduit is 10.5" long.
The raceway is not sealed.
The conduit is not large enough for number of cables in it.
And finally, derating has been completely ignored. As best as I can tell from the picture there are twenty seven current carrying conductors total+/_. Derating for 21-30 current carrying conductor is 45%. #14 is rated for 11.25A, #12 is good for 13.5A and #10 is good for 18A. The heat will eventually deteriorate the cable and conductors to the point of a fire hazard.
I had already mentioned that it needed to be sealed and I did say that it MIGHT be an acceptable installation. I missed the part about 10.5", so you got me there. However, conduit fill is 60% for less than 24" per Chapter 9. Also, there is no need to derate for less than 24". So other than being a few inches too short and needing some duct seal, it's almost there.

Mark
__________________
Licensed Master Electrician
Commonwealth of Virginia

Last edited by busman; 02-26-2013 at 10:33 AM. Reason: More info
busman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 11:07 AM   #73
UAW SKILLED TRADES
 
Stubbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Kansas
Posts: 4,851
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Quote:
Originally Posted by busman View Post
I had already mentioned that it needed to be sealed and I did say that it MIGHT be an acceptable installation. I missed the part about 10.5", so you got me there. However, conduit fill is 60% for less than 24" per Chapter 9. Also, there is no need to derate for less than 24". So other than being a few inches too short and needing some duct seal, it's almost there.

Mark
I don't think so Mark. chapter nine is talking about nipples between enclosures, cabinets, boxes ... this is not a nipple it is subject to 40% IMO... It is way overfill no matter which way you want to go. Derating is irrelevant in that .. why bother figuring it out... (I see electures had a go at it ) What we are looking at is merely a protective sleeve and is a clear code violation as electures has shown. You can only consider the above type installation for top entry into a surface mounted panel plus everything else that has to happen. He has a surface mounted panel (I think) but that is about it.....
__________________
" One nice thing about the NEC articles ... you have lots of choices"

Stubbie

Last edited by Stubbie; 02-26-2013 at 11:13 AM.
Stubbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 11:17 AM   #74
Master Electrician
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 463
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Stubbie View Post
I don't think so Mark. chapter nine is talking about nipples between enclosures, cabinets, boxes ... this is not a nipple it is subject to 40% IMO... It is way overfill no matter which way you want to go. Derating is irrelevant in that .. why bother figuring it out... (I see electures had a go at it ) What we are looking at is merely a protective sleeve and is a clear code violation as electures has shown. You can only consider the above type installation for top entry into a surface mounted panel plus everything else that has to happen. He has a surface mounted panel (I think) but that is about it.....
Well, if you want to have that opinion, you should read note (2) to Table 1. I'm standing by my interpretation. Article 312 tells you to use all the notes and note (2) tells you that the table doesn't apply to the situation in 312. You can go around in circles forever, but the intent seems to be that 312 wants you to follow that standard fill and derating rules, as if it were a complete conduit run or nipple.

Mark
__________________
Licensed Master Electrician
Commonwealth of Virginia

Last edited by busman; 02-26-2013 at 11:23 AM.
busman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2013, 11:23 AM   #75
Journeyman Wireman
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Missouri
Posts: 90
Default

Question about changing a service panel (breaker box)


A nipple is a nipple. Derate at 60% for 24" and shorter.

jbberns is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FPE Panel change out. Main Breaber to Lug TJ14u Electrical 4 01-22-2013 10:54 PM
distribution panel amperage rating tom31415926 Electrical 10 08-26-2012 04:09 PM
Tandem breaker positions in main service panel elmaur Electrical 14 05-11-2012 01:28 PM
100amp service to 200amp service - double or single panel CapeCod153 Electrical 8 05-09-2012 08:03 PM
Need to know if my grounds and neutrals are connected right dorlow Electrical 185 01-15-2012 02:54 PM




Top of Page | View New Posts

Copyright © 2003-2014 Escalate Media. All Rights Reserved.