ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by gfretwell - 03/28/24 12:43 AM
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
Cordless Tools: The Obvious Question
by renosteinke - 03/14/24 08:05 PM
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
0 members (), 255 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
#127726 10/16/01 07:10 AM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
R
Redsy Offline OP
Member
Why is only 31% conduit fill allowed for 2 wires, as opposed to 40% for 3?
I assume that it is precautionary, in the event that only 2 wires of a 3phase system are used, and the magnetic fields aren't cancelling. However, for all the commentary in the Handbook, this is not mentioned.
Anyone else.

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
 

#127727 10/16/01 02:44 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 4
Member
Redsy,

My guess is that it would be because 2 wires together that took up 40% fill may be too tight to pull through a conduit because they would be like >> oo or 8 << and together might approach the inside conduit diameter with the 40% fill limit. It would be a tight one for sure! Straight pulls might not be so bad, but 360 degrees would be another thing.

Does that make sense?

Bill


[This message has been edited by Bill Addiss (edited 10-16-2001).]


Bill
#127728 10/16/01 08:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
Redsy,
I see FPN #2 70-561, to back up the angle Bill's offered. Other than that the #'s do make me wonder if any specific mathematical logic was followed.
CMP9,,,
35!
no..29!
34 ?...
30
31.., an' it's break time!
[Linked Image]

#127729 10/16/01 10:06 PM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
R
Redsy Offline OP
Member
Guys,
Ahh..
The jam ratio! Lots of thought went into this idea. I think it refers to 3 wires, though. Not two.

#127730 10/16/01 11:02 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,116
Likes: 4
Member
Redsy,

That's my best shot...

[Linked Image]
Bill


Bill
#127731 10/17/01 07:12 AM
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,056
R
Redsy Offline OP
Member
Bill,

It's not anything that really concerns me. It's just something I have wondered about this in the past, and now, with this forum I thought I'd bounce it around.
Thanks.

#127732 10/17/01 07:22 AM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
Redsy,
We are, as electricians, always complying to code, and left wondering about the rationale. The handbook only goes so far, the only other resource would be a formal interpetation.
The thing is, some codes, and specifics , are probably so old there's no one left to explain it's orgin.

#127733 10/17/01 12:47 PM
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
sparky,
A formal interpretation would be of no help in finding out the "why" as the NFPA requires that requests for a formal interpretation be submitted in a manner that will allow the NFPA to answer the question with either a "yes" or a "no". The only way that I know of would be to find the TCR (now known as ROP) and the TCD (now known as the ROC) for the proposal that became the rule.
Don(resqcapt19)


Don(resqcapt19)
#127734 10/17/01 07:55 PM
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,392
S
Member
Don,
Sounds like some serious archive searching, at least on this issue. It makes me wonder if anyone actually pursues code history to this extent.


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