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
12/07/16 02:39 AM
Photo Upload Tutorial
by DanK
12/06/16 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
Potseal 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 92 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#3605 - 08/23/01 10:12 AM Engineering Supervision
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3325
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
Discussion:

1999 NEC, Section 310-4, Exception No. 4: Under engineering supervision,
grounded neutral conductors in sizes No. 2 and larger shall be permitted to be run in
parallel for existing installations.

FPN: Exception No. 4 can be utilized to alleviate overheating of neutral conductors in
existing installations due to high content of triplen harmonic currents.

This Question is for any engineer who can give the steps needed to accomplish Code
compliance:

Please give the answer to a situation where an existing EMT, using 4 #2 AWG THW
Copper conductors will require a larger neutral, such as another #2 AWG THW added
to make 5 wires in an existing 1-1/4 inch EMT.

How will your supervision be applied to this type of installation?
_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

Top
Work Gear for Electricians and the Trades

Work Gear for Electricians and the Trades
Work Gear for Electricians and the Trades
Arc Flash Clothing, Gloves, KneePads, Tool Belts, Pouches, Tool Carriers, etc. etc....

#3606 - 08/23/01 07:28 PM Re: Engineering Supervision
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5545
probably with some long winded explanation of natural grey....

Top
#3607 - 08/24/01 05:12 AM Re: Engineering Supervision
Redsy Offline
Member

Registered: 03/28/01
Posts: 2138
Loc: Bucks County PA
The engineering supervision exception allows parallel neutrals for a wire size smaller than the usual 1/0 minimum for parallelled conductors. It does not allow for increased condiut fill. An additional #2 THW in this conduit will exceed the allowable fill. 1 1/4" conduit allows .598 sq.in. fill. It currently is filled to .533 sq.in., and therefore maxed out for #2. This is a good example of someone following the minimum code requirements. 1 1/2" conduit would of been easier on the pull, also. But, hindsight is 20-20, and I can't say I blame the installer.
Is this a theoretical, or real instance?

Top
#3608 - 08/24/01 06:28 AM Re: Engineering Supervision
Joe Tedesco Offline
Member

Registered: 10/07/00
Posts: 3325
Loc: Boston, Massachusetts USA
Sparky:

Yes, I agree, you are probably correct, and the new 2002 NEC removes the word "natural" wherever it described the grounded conductor.

Redsy:

Just a scenario, and yours was a good reply -- and the first one that gives us a good reason to be concerned about "who" does the supervising!

Also, Chapter 9, Table C1 on page 585 in the 1999 NEC shows where only 4 THW are allowed in the 1-1/4 inch EMT, and where 6 are allowed in the 1-1/2 inch EMT.
_________________________
Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

Top
#3609 - 08/25/01 10:35 AM Re: Engineering Supervision
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5545
There would not be this 'engineering conflict' to simply upsize the noodle....

Top
#3610 - 08/25/01 10:46 AM Re: Engineering Supervision
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5545
Better yet, there would be little concern if it were in fact fed via 1 ph.

Top
#3611 - 08/27/01 10:46 AM Re: Engineering Supervision
WARREN1 Offline
Member

Registered: 05/09/01
Posts: 184
Loc: Greenville, SC, USA
Joe brings up a good question. What constitutes "Engineering Supervision"?

Every project I work on here at work is under the direction of a Registered Professional Engineer. I call that engineering supervision. However, if I were out there pulling wires, etc. as some of you are, then what is engineering supervision? Inspectors aren't required to be Registered Engineers in this state, perhaps in other states. As a field person, do you need to hire an engineer when necessary? How do you confirm that you have done so? Does the engineer sign off on something?

Just a few questions that come to mind.

Top
#3612 - 08/27/01 03:53 PM Re: Engineering Supervision
Redsy Offline
Member

Registered: 03/28/01
Posts: 2138
Loc: Bucks County PA
 Quote:
Originally posted by WARREN1:
Joe brings up a good question. What constitutes "Engineering Supervision"?

Every project I work on here at work is under the direction of a Registered Professional Engineer. I call that engineering supervision. However, if I were out there pulling wires, etc. as some of you are, then what is engineering supervision? Inspectors aren't required to be Registered Engineers in this state, perhaps in other states. As a field person, do you need to hire an engineer when necessary? How do you confirm that you have done so? Does the engineer sign off on something?

Just a few questions that come to mind.



As a daytime employee of a chemical plant, I report directly to a chemical engineer. I have never used the "Engineering Supervision" clause, and the assumption could be made that an E.E. is required. However, chemical engineering seems to encompass many physical disciplines, and I have discussed many electrical & code issues with him.

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