RCDD · Question #289
If you have a 30 cm (12 in) wide data tray, what does ANSI/TIA 569-B recommend be the maximum pathway fill cross sectional area assuming a MAXIMUM pathway depth of 15 cm (6 in)?
The correct answer is C. 225 sq cm (36 sq in). ANSI/TIA 569-B limits cable tray fill to 50% of the cross-sectional area; a 30 cm wide by 15 cm deep tray has a total area of 450 sq cm, so the maximum fill is 225 sq cm.
Question
If you have a 30 cm (12 in) wide data tray, what does ANSI/TIA 569-B recommend be the maximum pathway fill cross sectional area assuming a MAXIMUM pathway depth of 15 cm (6 in)?
Options
- A112.5 sq cm (18 sq in)
- B150 sq cm (24 sq in)
- C225 sq cm (36 sq in)
- D300 sq cm (48 sq in)
- E450 sq cm (72 sq in)
How the community answered
(30 responses)- A3% (1)
- B3% (1)
- C83% (25)
- D10% (3)
Why each option
ANSI/TIA 569-B limits cable tray fill to 50% of the cross-sectional area; a 30 cm wide by 15 cm deep tray has a total area of 450 sq cm, so the maximum fill is 225 sq cm.
112.5 sq cm represents only 25% of the tray's total cross-sectional area, which is more restrictive than the 50% maximum the standard requires.
150 sq cm represents approximately 33% fill, which is below the 50% maximum and does not reflect the correct calculation from the standard.
Per ANSI/TIA 569-B, the maximum pathway fill for a cable tray is 50% of its cross-sectional area. A 30 cm wide by 15 cm deep tray has a total cross-sectional area of 450 sq cm (72 sq in). Applying the 50% fill rule yields a maximum allowable fill of 225 sq cm (36 sq in), which prevents cable damage, eases heat dissipation, and allows for future cable additions.
300 sq cm represents 66.7% of the total cross-sectional area, exceeding the 50% maximum fill allowed by ANSI/TIA 569-B.
450 sq cm is the full 100% cross-sectional area of the tray, which would completely fill it and violates the 50% fill rule.
Concept tested: ANSI/TIA 569-B cable tray maximum fill percentage
Source: https://tiaonline.org/standard/tia-569/
Topics
Community Discussion
No community discussion yet for this question.