ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
UL 508A SPACING
by ale348 - 03/29/24 01:09 AM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
Do we need grounding?
by NORCAL - 03/19/24 05:11 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
1 members (ale348), 302 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
#95267 09/10/05 10:40 PM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 650
W
Member
There _are_ qualifiers to 310.15(B)(2), in the form of the exceptions that permit certain conductors, which are clearly expected to carry current, but which are not _counted_ as current carrying conductors. Eg. the permission to not count a neutral which only carries the imbalance current in a multiwire circuit, with the qualifiers that insure this is only used when the neutral actually doesn't carry current.

The example set of 12ga wires (which under current code _must_ derated to 15A) is different from a 14ga switch loop in a very important fashion. If any _one_ of these conductors is actually carrying 20A, then the other conductors cannot carry much current or the OCPD will trip. In other words, if any one of these conductors is actually carrying the full circuit current, the other conductors are _not_ carrying current.

If I stuff a conduit with a single 'hot', a single 'neutral', and 11 unused conductors, then under current code none of the conductors would be derated.

-Jon

Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

#95268 09/10/05 11:26 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
R
Member
I understand that exceptions exist, but the exceptions wouldn't pertain to this example.
I believe that current carrying conductors are current carrying conductors, regardless of the amount of current they are carrying.

#95269 09/11/05 07:46 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 650
W
Member
Redsy,

I completely agree. 1) Under present code this exception does not exist. 2) I believe that this situation is a safe situation and thus a reasonable exception to add to the code 3) I believe that this situation is unlikely enough as to not be worth the time to add such an exception.

This was more of a thought experiment that goes back to an earlier discussion in this thread, and a much more common situation: if you have a panel with limited feeder capacity, does this feeder capacity in any way influence the derating of bundled conductors fed by this panel. The answer is that there is no provision in the code to adjust the derating to account either for load diversity or feeder capacity. The question then becomes: is there a way to describe a _safe_ exception to 310.15(B)(2) that would account for such load diversity.

I don't know that there is a good way to build such an exception without restricting it to a few number of extreme cases as to make the exception essentially useless.

To get back to load diversity in residential panels with 'stove pipes' (big bundles of romex coming off the panel), perhaps a way to calculate the 'effective number of current carrying conductors in the worst case' would read as follows: 1) take the result of the service calculation as per article 220, 2) allocate this current to circuits operating at their rated current, starting with the smallest capacity circuits, 3) count the number of conductors used in this 'worst case' situation, 4) use this number for determining derating using 310.15(B)(2)a

Again, this is _not_ code; this is a vague outline of a suggestion for an exception to add to the code.

To work the above example, consider a residence with 200A service 240V/120 , a calculated load of 77A and a 40 circuit panel with a bunch of 20A general lighting and receptacle circuits. If all of the conductors were stove-piped, there might be 60 current carrying conductors in that single pipe. The worst case scenario for current heating would be if the load current were concentrated in a minimum number of circuits, so 8 120V 20A circuits being used to capacity.

I believe that it would be 'reasonable' (but not code) to count the above as 16 current carrying conductors for 310.15(B)(2).

There are clearly holes in the above; with a 200A service and calculated 77A load, what happens when the load increases (as it most certainly will)?

-Jon

#95270 09/11/05 12:00 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
When in doubt of the mind of the CMP and NFPA, write a proposal.

I like George's idea. ... Where multiple switched legs of a single branch circuit occupy the same raceway they may be allowed to be considered a single conductor for the purposes of derating ... or words to that effect.


Greg Fretwell
#95271 09/12/05 04:54 PM
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 693
L
Member
How about derating based on the quantity of circuits?


Larry Fine
Fine Electric Co.
fineelectricco.com
#95272 09/12/05 05:15 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 5
T
New Member
How about an exception for single family dwellings, like the state of Wisconsin
has in their state code.

Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5