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:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Calling all Non-US members!! (Non-US only)
by aussie240
Today at 02:39 AM
Photo Upload Tutorial
by DanK
Yesterday at 11:35 PM
Sprinklered equipment 26-008
by bigpapa
12/02/16 04:24 PM
On Delay Relay with Auto Reset
by Potseal
12/01/16 09:59 AM
Wow, that was close!
by jraef
11/28/16 07:06 PM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm≤ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 13
HotLine1 9
Texas_Ranger 8
sparkyinak 7
Trumpy 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 282 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#197143 - 11/11/10 11:56 AM Table 310.15[B],16
KJay Offline
Member

Registered: 11/27/07
Posts: 763
Loc: MA, USA
Looking over the changes to what was previously Table 310.16, does this mean we can no longer use 20A for #14 and 25A for #12 at 60-degree C for derating purposes?
If so, I can see this causing some new installation issues requiring conductor upsizing.

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#197182 - 11/13/10 04:51 PM Re: Table 310.15[B],16 [Re: KJay]
KJay Offline
Member

Registered: 11/27/07
Posts: 763
Loc: MA, USA
Hmmm, no input on this?

Top
#197193 - 11/14/10 10:39 AM Re: Table 310.15[B],16 [Re: KJay]
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9045
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
I don't have the 2011 yet. I suppose that may be why other are not jumping in.
Did they change the 60c rating for small conductors?
I can see this affecting motors and HVAC more than derating.
Don't you derate from the 90c?
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#197247 - 11/16/10 09:24 AM Re: Table 310.15[B],16 [Re: gfretwell]
KJay Offline
Member

Registered: 11/27/07
Posts: 763
Loc: MA, USA
Good point. I donít have my new code book in hand yet either, so I guess Iím getting a little bit anxious since around here we have to be ready to hit the ground running on January 1.

Top
#197249 - 11/16/10 11:08 AM Re: Table 310.15[B],16 [Re: KJay]
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9045
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
Florida won't get around to adopting this until 2012 or later if the past is any indication.

I am really waiting for the handbook CD. I don't travel around much and I am starting to like the CD format.
I will probably just buy it here at ECN. Last time they were about the same as everywhere else and I would just as soon help out these guys.
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#197252 - 11/16/10 12:35 PM Re: Table 310.15[B],16 [Re: gfretwell]
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6804
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
Greg:
I have a 2011 & the 'free' PDF. When I get home tonite, I'll try to cut/paste 310.16 & get it up here.

I have NOT had any time (to speak of) to open the 2011 yet, & like you, I'm waiting for the handbook & CD.
_________________________
John

Top
#197255 - 11/16/10 04:42 PM Re: Table 310.15[B],16 [Re: HotLine1]
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6804
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
Here's part of 310.15(b)
"(B) Tables. Ampacities for conductors rated 0 to 2000 volts
shall be as specified in the Allowable Ampacity Table
310.15(B)(16) through Table 310.15(B)(19), and Ampacity
Table 310.15(B)(20) and Table 310.15(B)(21) as modified by
310.15(B)(1) through (B)(7).
The temperature correction and adjustment factors shall
be permitted to be applied to the ampacity for the temperature
rating of the conductor, if the corrected and adjusted
ampacity does not exceed the ampacity for the temperature
rating of the termination in accordance with the provisions
of 110.14(C).
Informational Note: Table 310.15(B)(16) through Table
310.15(B)(19) are application tables for use in determining
conductor sizes on loads calculated in accordance with Article
220. Allowable ampacities result from consideration of
one or more of the following:
(1) Temperature compatibility with connected equipment,
especially the connection points.
(2) Coordination with circuit and system overcurrent protection.
(3) Compliance with the requirements of product listings
or certifications. See 110.3(B).
(4) Preservation of the safety benefits of established industry
practices and standardized procedures.
(1) General. For explanation of type letters used in tables"

Anyone who can enlarge this font, please do so (with my blessings)


Edited by HotLine1 (11/16/10 04:47 PM)
Edit Reason: Added note
_________________________
John

Top
#197299 - 11/18/10 12:15 PM Re: Table 310.15[B],16 [Re: HotLine1]
KJay Offline
Member

Registered: 11/27/07
Posts: 763
Loc: MA, USA
Regarding the article HotLine posted above, does this mean we can still us the 90C column for derating purposes for NM cables or must we now start at 60C.

"The temperature correction and adjustment factors shall
be permitted to be applied to the ampacity for the temperature
rating of the conductor, if the corrected and adjusted
ampacity does not exceed the ampacity for the temperature
rating of the termination in accordance with the provisions
of 110.14(C)."

Top
#197301 - 11/18/10 01:56 PM Re: Table 310.15[B],16 [Re: KJay]
HotLine1 Offline

Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 6804
Loc: Brick, NJ USA
Not to be critical, but....that sounds like one of our (NJ) many lawyers wrote that!

I'm pondering what it says when time permits
_________________________
John

Top
#197309 - 11/18/10 04:21 PM Re: Table 310.15[B],16 [Re: HotLine1]
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9045
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
I don't read this as changing anything. We have always limited the ultimate ampacity to the rating of the termination.
You just use the 90c column for dealing with ambient temperature and bundled conductor adjustments.
If you are using one of the restricted cables (AC, MC, RX), you end up with the 60c limit anyway.

They did change the name of 310.16 to 310.15(B)(15) but I don't think it changed. (that was a Mike Holt proposal, just to maintain continuity in 310.15)
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



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