The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured Items:

Switch Bit - Interchangeable Flex Bit System
>> Switch Bit -
Interchangeable Flex Bit System

>> 2014 NEC and Related

Recent Posts
Looking for a new truck
by sparkyinak
Yesterday at 09:52 PM
Australia-wall boxes not required
by Owain
Yesterday at 10:44 AM
Burnt meter leads testing receptacle voltage
by mbhydro
08/31/14 07:30 AM
Markings required on Disconnects, OCD,ect
by HotLine1
08/27/14 08:21 PM
Circuit Breaker temperature ratings and the CEC
by twh
08/23/14 11:55 PM
New in the Gallery:
Copper Theft
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 16
HotLine1 11
Potseal 7
arctic_wire 4
captzap 4
Who's Online
0 registered (), 108 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#194781 - 06/22/10 09:44 AM 250.122 [B]
KJay Offline
Member

Registered: 11/27/07
Posts: 758
Loc: MA, USA
How are you interpreting “equipment grounding conductors, where installed,” as stated in 250.122[B] when ungrounded conductors are upsized?
Do you consider this as meaning where an EGC is actually pulled in a raceway, or simply where any EGC is present, whether physically pulled or part of a listed cable assembly, such as SER?

It seems that this could possibly be interpreted either way and might allow using an upsized cable assembly containing an equipment-grounding conductor sized only per Table 250.122, as opposed to a raceway where the conductors are pulled and the EGC sized on the ratio of the circular mil area of the upsized ungrounded conductors.
What is your take on this?

TKX

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#194783 - 06/22/10 10:37 AM Re: 250.122 [B] [Re: KJay]
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 8375
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
In a cable, the EGC size gets bigger in proportion to the other conductors getting bigger so 250.122(B) is satisfied.
I assume that is built into the listing standard for all cables.
In the case of SE cable (TYLZ in the white book) it says

Quote:
Based upon tests which have been made involving the maximum heating
that can be produced, an uninsulated conductor employed in a service
cable assembly is considered to have the same current-carrying capacity as
the insulated conductors even though it may be smaller in size.
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#194784 - 06/22/10 12:58 PM Re: 250.122 [B] [Re: gfretwell]
KJay Offline
Member

Registered: 11/27/07
Posts: 758
Loc: MA, USA
Thank you Greg. Good find on the SE cable listing.
I had considered that the cables must have had this rule applied already, but now that I have thought this through a bit more, it appears that since Table 250.122 is based on overcurrent, not wire size, it wouldn’t have any relevance when over sizing conductors for things such as voltage drop calcs, being that the actual overcurrent protection would normally be lower than the maximum rating of the conductor.
Unfortunately, sometimes I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Top
#194788 - 06/22/10 03:12 PM Re: 250.122 [B] [Re: KJay]
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 8375
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
The white book is a great resource if you are curious about the listing on a particular product. Unfortunately it usually ends up making you want to actually see the listing standard and U/L charges big bucks for that.
I suppose that is why they give the White Book away for free. wink
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals