In sizing a 200 amp 120/240V power cord and using NEC table 400.5 under the 75 degree E2 column it shows that 1/0 type "W" cable is sufficient for 207 amps. Since compliance with 110.14 (C) is based on Table 310.16 does that mean the ampacities listed in 310.16 override the ampacities listed in table 440.5?
Thanks Hotline. The commentary at the bottom of 2008 NEC Handbook page 483 (step 3, Termination analysis) is still confusing for me because it verifies the compliance of the application example using Table 310.16. In my example (120/240V 200 amp power cord) with no applicable derating factors and using the 75 degree column in Table 400.5, using table 310.16 for verification as the commentary suggests would not result in compliance for 1/0 conductors.
Following your path above, you are 100% correct that 1/0 Cu is insufficient via 310.16 for verification. I'll have to wait 'till tommorrow to read the Handbook comm., as both '08 & '11 are in my office, and I can't find the '11 Handbook on DVD.
If you get a chance, please read the commentary after 110.14 (2)on pages 48 and 49 of the 200 NEC Handbook let me know how that affects your stance. Still trying to make 100% sense of this....Thank you.
Hi Greg. I was going with note 2 in 400.5(B) since the neutral per 400.5(B)is not required to meet the requirements of a CCC. Even the F column ampacities in table 400.5(B)( 2/0 = 208 amps)would not fly using table 310.16 for the termination requirements. The commentary after 110.14(2) pretty much says to not use tables other than 310.16 for termination verification which seems to mean that is does override table 400.5.
Cool! I was worried it was a no-brainer and I was missing the boat. The quote from 400.5(A) you posted is also confusing because the wording "in conjunction" seems ambiguous. I'm guessing they mean the lowest rating between the NEC and NRTL shall prevail.