0 members (),
506
guests, and
19
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
OP
Member
|
250.122(B) requires EGCs to be increased proportionally when circuit conductors are increased for voltage drop. So, although a #10 EGC is good enough for up to a 60 amp ckt., per Table 250.122, if you run a particularly long, 20-amp ckt. and increase the ungrounded conductors to, say #8, you will need to increase the EGC to #8 also. Any comments, please?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
Moderator
|
Bob Badger Construction & Maintenance Electrician Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
OP
Member
|
I'm wondering why a #10 ground is good enough for a 60-amp ckt with #6 circuit conductors, but not good enough for a 20-amp ckt. with #8 circuit conductors.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 681
Member
|
Effective Ground Fault Current Path
Pierre Belarge
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
OP
Member
|
PCB,
If #10 is effective for a 60 amp OCPD, why not for a 20 amp OCPD. I don't believe that the increased resistance due to length will inhibit the operation of the CB. And if the EGC and circuit conductors need to be matched in size for some concept related to balanced, or equal impedances between circuit conductors and EGCs, why can the EGC be smaller than the circuit conductors in circuits above 30-amp?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
Member
|
Redsy, How would you write the rule? The EGC does have to increase with the size of the ungrounded conductors, and I don't know of a way to write a rule to accomplish this other than how it is currently written. If you do, it is not too late to submit an online proposal . Don
Don(resqcapt19)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
OP
Member
|
Thanks, guys.
I am just wondering if there is some kind of theoretical concept that I am overlooking?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,498 Likes: 1
Member
|
From a theoretical point of view you want the impedance of the PCBelarge's effective ground fault current path to be low enough to trip the breaker within a reasonable time.
If the 20A breaker is designed to be very forgiving to momentary surges in current while the 60A breaker so to speak is "trigger happy", you could get this counterintuitive result. The breaker manufacturers or their websites can no doubt tell.
[This message has been edited by C-H (edited 11-02-2005).]
[This message has been edited by C-H (edited 11-02-2005).]
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,931 Likes: 34
Member
|
I understand the concept but the reality is 2000 feet of #12 would still trip a 20a breaker with a bolted fault, even if it takes 150% (30a) to operate it.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 178
Member
|
gfretwell: Yes, the breaker would trip. But in the meantime, the voltage at the point of fault would be higher than if the EGC was sized per the rule, so the shock threat is greater.
Redsy: I know it sounds inconsistent, but I don't think it is. Remember, the reason the EGC was sized up was the long run. If that 60 amp circuit was the same length, it would need a #4 EGC.
|
|
|
Posts: 7,382
Joined: April 2002
|
|
|
|