ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
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 (), 265 guests, and 15 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Greg,
I don't think the rule is one bit ambiguous. It is clear that when you are using OCPDs rated 30 amps or less that the EGC must be of the same size as the ungrounded conductors. If you are using a cable wiring method, you will have to get custom cable or use a cable 4 conductor cable in place of a 3 or 5 in place of a 4 to get a full size condutor to use as the EGC.

It is my opinion that the size of the EGC should be based on the size of the ungrounded conductor and not on the size of the OCPD. That would make table 250.122 work like 250.66, but that is not what the code says and a proposal to that effect was rejected by CMP 5.


Don(resqcapt19)
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
 

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
When you step back and look at the rules in general, it appears this is a "small conductor" rule and once you get to #8 it is not a small conductor anymore but I agree that is what the rules say.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 849
Y
Member
250.122 (B) is quite clear Up the ungrounded conductor because of Voltage drop Upsize the Equipment ground Proportionately according to circular mill area of the conductor. Does not note size Small or large.
Yoopersup
Note: but in no case does the EGC have to be larger then conductor: (250.122 (A)

Last edited by Yoopersup; 08/26/10 11:31 AM.
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
That does bring up the interesting conundrum that you can have an 8 ga circuit with a 10ga EGC on a 50a breaker but if you put a 30a breaker on it you need an 8ga EGC.
Things that make you say huh?


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2
Cat Servant
Member
Ambiguouis? Maybe not. Logical? Probably. Consistant? Not a chance.

I woud submit that if a #10 is adequate for 30 amp fault current when voltage drop is not a concern, then that same #10 ought to be adequate for 20 amps when you are worried about voltage drop.

Yet, strictly speaking, that's not how the code reads. This, in turn, leads to the conclusion that many cable wiring methods are not suitable for long runs.

This brings to mind the 'insulated ground' requirement for some pool panels.

These little glitches area direct consequence of the way the NEC is written. Frequent revisions, isolated panels, lobbying interests - and the latest twist, an 'appeals' element. I suppose the real miracle is that there are not more such unicorns in the code forest.

It's something to think about as we prepare to receive a new edition. From the crystal clarity of the Constitution, the NEC is more beginning to resemble the tax code.

Ultimately, it's not about wire sizing.

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 466
Likes: 1
J
Member
Like you said John, not too hard to get inconsistancies when the CMPs are focused on one area and don't see how their change can affect other Articles. Sometimes you need to step back and look at the NEC as a whole.

There are also the ones like you and I have discussed like the cord and plug range hood that needs a dedicated circuit, but if you hardwire it you do not. If you are doing this to allow a possible future change to a microhood you should have the circuit dedicated regardless of connection method. But wait, isn't this a design issue?

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 849
Y
Member
I really think its Quite Clear (250.122b )
Voltage drop must be taken in account in the GEC as well as phase conductors. Whats unclear about that???

Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,923
Likes: 32
G
Member
You start getting answers like "No I didn't upsize for voltage drop, it was just what I had on the truck". wink


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Youpersup,
There is no code requirement to take voltage drop into account other than a couple of specific circuits.

250.122(B) no longer mentions voltage drop(that wording was last used in the 1999 code). If you use an ungrounded conductor that is larger than the minimum size permitted by Table 310.16, the you must increase the size of the EGC in direct proportion to the increase in size of the ungrounded conductor.


Don(resqcapt19)
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 849
Y
Member
So if you increase the wire size , Example street light outlets on poles to 1/0 . Equipment ground size does what????
RV parks same as a cpl examples where Much larger phase conductors are used because of VD/

Page 2 of 2 1 2

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