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
Industrail Control Panel bonding per 409.108
by sparkyinak
Yesterday at 03:17 PM
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
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 13
HotLine1 9
sparkyinak 8
Texas_Ranger 8
Potseal 6
Who's Online
0 registered (), 208 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#98710 - 02/17/05 05:00 PM 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)
Roger Offline
Member

Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 1779
Loc: N.C.
Does anybody know why motors with design letter "E" were dropped from this section?

And while we are here, what is the reason for the special consideration of the design types in this section anyways?

Roger

[This message has been edited by Roger (edited 02-17-2005).]

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#98711 - 02/17/05 05:03 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)
Ralpha494 Offline
Member

Registered: 05/19/04
Posts: 71
Loc: Pewaukee,WI,USA
I heard nobody ever made one.

Top
#98712 - 02/17/05 05:33 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)
Roger Offline
Member

Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 1779
Loc: N.C.
That's interesting, I must admitt I don't recall ever seeing one.

But what about the second part, why are these particular design types given this allowance?

Roger

Top
#98713 - 02/17/05 07:38 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9045
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
I assume you are talking about 430.52.
That just reflects the ratio between normal FLA and LRA. The high effeciency motors evidently have a lower FLA for a given LRA.
It must be a very short LR time since the big difference is in the instant trip breaker column
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#98714 - 02/17/05 09:24 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)
rbalex Offline
Member

Registered: 12/29/04
Posts: 12
Loc: Laguna Hills, CA USA
 Quote:
11-16 Log #2308 NEC-P11
(430-7(A)(9))
Final Action: Accept
Submitter: Vince Baclawski, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) / Rep. NEMA
Recommendation:
Revise as shown below:
(9) Design letter for design B, C, or D, [or E deleted] motors.
Substantiation:
The Design E motor standard was rescinded by NEMA in February 2000. All references to Design E motors have been removed from NEMA Standards Publication MG 1-1998 "Motors and Generators".

This was one of approximately two dozen Proposals, all with the same Substantiation


[This message has been edited by rbalex (edited 02-18-2005).]

Top
#98715 - 02/18/05 07:08 AM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)
Roger Offline
Member

Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 1779
Loc: N.C.
Let me clarify my secod question.

Why are motors of desing types B,C, or D specifically allowed to use conductors of 75 deg regardless of markings or lack of?

Why would these particular motors be allowed this consideration while other motors would have to comply with the 60 deg limitation for 100 amps or smaller unless marked for higher terminations?

Roger

Top
#98716 - 02/18/05 09:23 AM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)
rbalex Offline
Member

Registered: 12/29/04
Posts: 12
Loc: Laguna Hills, CA USA
Roger,

The same question was asked in this forum earlier. The only change to the Section was the elimination of “Design E” motors.

“General Purpose” motors, or as UL refers to them, “motors in ordinary locations,” are not listed; however, if they are designed to NEMA MG-1, their terminals are already suitable for 75C, regardless of the hp.

“Explosion-Proof” motors are listed, but are also generally NEMA Design B, C or D, so they also have terminals that are automatically rated at 75C no matter what hp.

Bob

Top
#98717 - 02/18/05 10:05 AM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)
Roger Offline
Member

Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 1779
Loc: N.C.
Hello Bob, and welcome to the forum.

I know that the deletion of the E design was the only change, but as far as my other question, since the terminals are 75 deg and marked, why is it necessary to include this wording in 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)?

I'm just nitpicking, but it seems as though it is a waste of ink.

Roger

Top
#98718 - 02/18/05 11:52 AM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)
rbalex Offline
Member

Registered: 12/29/04
Posts: 12
Loc: Laguna Hills, CA USA
The motor terminals aren't required to be marked (they usually aren't) and the motors themselves aren’t listed; but, if the motor nameplate indicates they are NEMA Design B, C or D, the terminals are suitable for the full ampacity of conductors rated 75C or less.

Top
#98719 - 02/18/05 12:36 PM Re: 110.14(C)(1)(a)(4)
Roger Offline
Member

Registered: 05/18/02
Posts: 1779
Loc: N.C.
Bob, I just don't understand why these particular motors are different than all other types as far as temp ratings.

Roger

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