• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

A question for you.

ICE

ICE

MODERATOR
Staff member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
13,822
Location
California
NMC enters the bottom of the furnace and then to the outlet box mounted on the top. The snap switch is the disconnect for the furnace.

Would you allow this?

DSCN0703.jpg
 
No, this unit is designed to operate mounted vertically. The flame pattern from the burners will not properly impinge on the heat exchanger when it's mounted in this orientation. Also the flow of fumes to the vent will not flow properly causing a potential for CO to enter the residence.
 
Msradell said:
No, this unit is designed to operate mounted vertically. The flame pattern from the burners will not properly impinge on the heat exchanger when it's mounted in this orientation. Also the flow of fumes to the vent will not flow properly causing a potential for CO to enter the residence.
Click to expand...
Gosh I hope you are wrong about that. I will be going back for corrections and I will check it out. If you are right, I'll be back to thank you.

Tiger
 
usually the nameplate is the hint to the orientation. A snap switch can usually be the disconnect.
 
I did some further research today in appears that Trane does make some units that can be operated both horizontally and vertically, I wasn't aware of that. You will certainly need to consult the manuals for that unit to verify the installation meets the requirements specified by Trane. As mentioned by peach, the snap switch for the disconnect an acceptable in most jurisdictions.
 
Msradell said:
I did some further research today in appears that Trane does make some units that can be operated both horizontally and vertically, I wasn't aware of that. You will certainly need to consult the manuals for that unit to verify the installation meets the requirements specified by Trane. As mentioned by peach, the snap switch for the disconnect an acceptable in most jurisdictions.
Click to expand...
I will certainly be checking the orientation.

I don't question the use of a snap switch but it's location has me wondering.
 
i don't get the pictures 'cause i'm on a municipal system that blocks them. as long as the motor is stationary, which i'm guessing it is and les than 2 hp, a snap switcvh is ok for a motor controller. NEC '08 section 430.83 © (1) and (2)
 
steveray said:
"location has me wondering."Actual physical position? or the fact that they ran NM through the unit?
Click to expand...
For many years we wouldn't allow a cord and attachment plug as the disconnect because the units aren't listed with a cord and plug. Now we allow it.

I am not so sure that utilizing the furnace as a raceway is appropriate and I am quite sure the unit wasn't listed with an outlet box mounted as shown. To allow this leaves it open to place the outlet box anywhere on the unit. It could be that I am being picky but since I'm not sure, I guess I'll be picky.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chris kennedy said:
440.14 allows the disco to be on the unit. As far as the wiring method passing through, think about RTU's, quite common
Click to expand...
440.14 does indeed say the disconnect can be on or even within air conditioning equipment. It goes so far as to say where it can't be located such as a removable panel or over the nameplate. The implication is that it can be field installed.

Now what about the listing? It seems problematic to allow any location other than a panel or nameplate.

What is a RTU?
 
chris kennedy said:
440.14 allows the disco to be on the unit. As far as the wiring method passing through, think about RTU's, quite common.
Click to expand...
Chris,

With a RTU the disconnect is mounted to the equipment or it is built into the equipment. In either case, conduit brings power to the disconnect. The conduit wouldn't hit the equipment on one side with the disconnect on the opposite side and the conductors passing through the housing to get to the disconnect. At least I don't recall seeing such an arrangement.

Logically, I think there must be control of where a disconnect is mounted to the equipment rather than stating that since the code allows the disconnect mounted to the equipment, anywhere is OK.
 
codeworks sez: "i don't get the pictures 'cause i'm on a municipal system that blocks them."

It's a picture of a real hottie laying on her side, she's pretty hot, to bad you can't see the picture codeworks!

pc1
 
the codes are a minimum.. if the code is silent and the manufacturer is silent, you need to accept... not what we "like" or "want to see"...
 
peach said:
the codes are a minimum.. if the code is silent and the manufacturer is silent, you need to accept... not what we "like" or "want to see"...
Click to expand...
I understand the concept and debunk it. On more than one occasion, I have come across something I didn't like that was not addressed by the code or the manufacturer and I ruled against it. Subsequent discussions with the Chief {insert discipline here} Engineer and or the manufacturer have upheld my decisions. I have written corrections after UL and third party listings and been upheld.

I get paid to question everything. Clearly, my opinion counts, as is true with every inspector. Inspectors are not automatons. As great as the codes are, they are not perfect. That which is not mentioned in code or mnf. instructions is not to be shunted off to an automatic acceptance. Lawyers remark that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because it's not there, it doesn't magically become unimportant.

If nothing else, I learn from the questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top