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

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#102520 - 05/25/06 05:16 PM 26-256
twh Offline
Member
Registered: 03/11/04
Posts: 901
Loc: Regina, Sask.
I have a 75kva transformer, 600v to 208v. The primary rating is 72.1 amps.

26-256(1): The primary overcurrent is to be 125%, or 90.125 amps; and, that will protect the secondary conductors rated at 125% of the rated secondary.

The rated secondary current is calculated to be 208.18 amps, so the secondary conductors must be good for 260.2 amps. I select 250 MCM copper with an ampacity of 265 amps.

26-256(3) provides that where 125% of the primary current does not correspond to the standard rating of an overcurrent device, the next highter rating shall be permitted. 90.125 amps is greater than the standard size of 90 amps, so the next standard size is 100 amps.

There is no stipulation that when the larger overcurrent is used, the size of the secondary conductor must be increased.

The inspector suggests that rule 14-606 must be applied to the conductors. I disagree that the rule about panels applies to conductors.

It is my position that the code allows for overcurrent to be greater than the ampacity of the conductors in certain circumstances. Motor feeders are an example, as is 14-104(a) and the associated Table 13. 26-256 is just another example.

Are we missing something? What do you think?
Top
Tools for Electricians:
#102521 - 05/25/06 09:45 PM Re: 26-256
jay8 Offline
Member
Registered: 07/28/05
Posts: 183
Loc: Vancouver, BC
Good question, I would tend to think the construction of the 75kva xformer should have a current limiting effect so conductors should not have to be increased. In your installation, why not just go down to 90 amp overcurrent and keep all your feeder sizes as you have calculated them?
Top
#102522 - 05/27/06 03:44 AM Re: 26-256
twh Offline
Member
Registered: 03/11/04
Posts: 901
Loc: Regina, Sask.
Quote:
why not just go down to 90 amp overcurrent ...

Because I shouldn't need to.
Top
#102523 - 05/27/06 07:26 AM Re: 26-256
bigrockk Offline
Member
Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 174
Loc: Middle of Canada
Quote:
The inspector suggests that rule 14-606 must be applied to the conductors. I disagree that the rule about panels applies to conductors.


I agree that this rule does not apply to conductors; it applies to the protection of panelboards.
If you are feeding a panel board and the inspector's concern is for the protection of the panelboard, then I could understand how rule 14-606 would apply and either a panelboard with a higher ampacity or a smaller fuse at the primary of the transformer would satisfy rule 14-606.
If you are feeding some other type of load other than a panelboard then I would think rule 14-606 has absolutely no bearing on your situation.
Top
#102524 - 06/21/06 09:31 AM Re: 26-256
mikesh Offline
Member
Registered: 06/07/06
Posts: 613
Loc: Victoria, BC, Canada
TWH What is connected to the Transformer? is there secondary O/C protection? If you were feeding a 225 amp panel the largest O/C protection on the primary is 78 amps as the ratio of 2.88 from 225 amps to the primary of 78.125 amps. A 70 or 75 amp primary O/C protection is ok to protect the panel. A 200 amp panel would limit the primary o/c protection to 60 amps and you might blow that fuse just turning it on. If you are protecting a load then the next available fuse or breaker might be ok. You are required to protect conductors but Panel boards have over current rules too. Unless the panel has more than 90% motor loads then you cannot overfuse a panel.
Now if you come off the secondary to an overcurrent device in say a 225 amp panel then the 90 or even 100 amp is OK. So why would you argue about the 100 amp fuse over a 90 anyway? Or is this just for the sake of discussion?
Top
#102525 - 06/21/06 09:41 PM Re: 26-256
twh Offline
Member
Registered: 03/11/04
Posts: 901
Loc: Regina, Sask.
mikesh: The primary fusing protects the secondary conductors. The panel is 400 amp and the load on the panel is not mainly motors.

At this point, it's for the sake of discussion. I'm upset because the inspector threatened to withhold approval on another part of the job, because of this. I am now aware that he stands in the minority with his view, at least in this part of the country.
Top
#102526 - 06/22/06 09:10 AM Re: 26-256
mikesh Offline
Member
Registered: 06/07/06
Posts: 613
Loc: Victoria, BC, Canada
TWH while I appreciate the inspectors point of view I cannot see a violation with the added info re the panel size of 400 amps. I think the safer installation is the 90 amp O/C device.
Top
#102527 - 06/22/06 09:30 AM Re: 26-256
mikesh Offline
Member
Registered: 06/07/06
Posts: 613
Loc: Victoria, BC, Canada
Whoa Stop the presses. I changed my mind a little. TWH you need to reread 26-256(1) and so do I. It says no more than 125% except that you may go to the next size in subrule 3. You would have to prove to me that the 90 amp OC protection is incapable of protecting the transformer because it is tripping on inrush.
That means You can use a 90.125 amp fuse as a maximim value. You cannot just automatically go up in size unless you can show the transformer protection won't hold at 90 amps. then the .125 amps gives you the right to go to the next size.
Top
#102528 - 06/22/06 02:50 PM Re: 26-256
Cosimo Offline
Junior Member
Registered: 06/21/06
Posts: 6
TWH,

What province are you in?


[This message has been edited by Cosimo Diano (edited 06-28-2006).]
Top
#102529 - 06/22/06 04:05 PM Re: 26-256
twh Offline
Member
Registered: 03/11/04
Posts: 901
Loc: Regina, Sask.
mikesh: 26-258(3) says that if 125% does not correspond to the standard rating of the overcurrent device, the next higher standard rating shall be permitted.

"Shall be permitted" means that the inspector shall permit the use of the next higher standard size. It does not mean that the inspector can add extra requirements before it is permitted.

Show me where it says that I must prove anything beyond that 90.1 is greater than 90. I insist that if the rules apply to electricians, they apply to inspectors, too.

Cosimo Diano: I'm in Saskatchewan.

[This message has been edited by twh (edited 06-22-2006).]
Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Member Spotlight
Member Since: 01/22/05
Posts: 5316
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box


Who's Online
0 registered (), 65 Guests and 12 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
 
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
 
Top Posters (30 Days)
Admin 47
HotLine1 43
gfretwell 19
Ruben Rocha 12
Trumpy 9
 
Newest Members
Scotto, Freecrowder, clee512, Jdscott2005, FAIZAN

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