jar546
CBO
Is this FMC (Greenfield) a code compliant installation?
Why? Why not?
Why? Why not?
-
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.
What violation is this?
- Thread starter jar546
- Start date
fatboy
Administrator
Exceeds allowable bend radius would be my guess.
jar546
CBO
No sir. More basic than that.
Mr. Inspector
SAWHORSE
348.30 securely fastened 12" within each box............
jar546
CBO
Yes Sir. There are times when you can leave it unsupported but this is not one of them
jar546
CBO
One is an emergency circuit and one is a normal circuit and they are for controlling lighting and have to go through a relay so that when power is lost the emergency lights turn on even if the switch is in the off position. This is normal and routine for many situations. This is a school
Builder Bob
SAWHORSE
grounding and number of conductors in FNC may be an issue / Bonding between two systems may also be an issue/ just to many questions about this installation. I have never seen this as usually the ATS will switch over to feed the emergency circuits (red box) from the emergency circuit panel box. This eliminates the need for redundant wiring and fail safe systems as depicted.
Still a little confused, I thought the ATS took care of switching power sources upon permanent power source failure, not sure I have ever seen a redundant system tied together in the field like this = is this what the electrical engineer depicted on plans or was this an attempt at field modifications to make something work?
Still a little confused, I thought the ATS took care of switching power sources upon permanent power source failure, not sure I have ever seen a redundant system tied together in the field like this = is this what the electrical engineer depicted on plans or was this an attempt at field modifications to make something work?
jar546
CBO
The photo just depicts the outside of the conduit and the wiring was never in question, it was a conduit violation.
The previous system used a relay to turn on or keep the emergency fixtures on regardless of the position of the switch so in the event of power loss, the emergency light fixtures came on. Normal power provides power to the emergency fixtures and regular fixtures, however with a loss of normal power, the relay places power to the emergency fixtures only regardless of the position of the switches.
The previous system used a relay to turn on or keep the emergency fixtures on regardless of the position of the switch so in the event of power loss, the emergency light fixtures came on. Normal power provides power to the emergency fixtures and regular fixtures, however with a loss of normal power, the relay places power to the emergency fixtures only regardless of the position of the switches.
north star
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,596
* = * = *
** Rick18071 ** had it correct !..........`17 NEC, Article 348.30(A)
* = * = *
** Rick18071 ** had it correct !..........`17 NEC, Article 348.30(A)
* = * = *
fatboy
Administrator
Is the MC cable landing in a EMT fitting?
Wrong size? Doesn't look right.
Even the FMC fittings aren't the same.
Wrong size? Doesn't look right.
Even the FMC fittings aren't the same.