ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Mini Split voltage
by Garemaret - 06/21/24 04:53 AM
Strobing LEDs
by Anovalight - 06/20/24 03:16 AM
Stuff that happens after we leave
by HotLine1 - 06/17/24 03:53 PM
photocell requirement for metal halide ballasts
by gfretwell - 06/17/24 01:44 PM
Commercial lift stations
by triple - 06/09/24 05:23 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
1 members (Scott35), 156 guests, and 13 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
#55544 09/01/05 01:12 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 20
G
Member
Is the Conductors for a Sub-Panel considered a Feeder and are we subsequently able to use Table 310.15(B)(6) to calculate our wire size?

#55545 09/01/05 02:50 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,942
Likes: 34
G
Member
You can only use 310.15(B)(6) if this is the feeder to the entire dwelling load, like the feeder from an outside main disconnect to the main panel inside the house. A sub panel off the main is sized with 310.16.
It has to do with load diversity.


Greg Fretwell
#55546 09/01/05 05:59 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,044
Tom Offline
Member
Table 310.15(B)(6) is one of the areas of the code that can cause a fistfight to break out. While I am in complete agreement with the post from Gfretwell, there are many parts of the country where this is not enforced this way and you would be able to use the table for your feeder. If your work is subject to inspection, it is best (as always) to consult with the AHJ prior to commencing work.

Tom


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example.
#55547 09/01/05 06:21 PM
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,716
R
Member
I agree with Greg and Tom, 310.16

Roger

#55548 09/01/05 08:36 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 20
G
Member
Thanks for the reply guys......

#55549 09/03/05 06:53 AM
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
And I say do away with Table 310.15(B)(6) to make the NEC smaller and with less sections of confusion. [Linked Image]

Is using 310.16 that outrageously expensive?

Bob


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
#55550 09/03/05 09:54 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 650
W
Member
Given what copper prices are doing, every little bit helps.

On the other hand, reduced resistance in feeders means more efficient deliver of power to the load, and lower lifetime costs. If you take the 'Copper Development Association' at their word, you'd be upsizing from 310.16 by a size or two anyway. [Linked Image]

On the left foot, I'd rather do away with 310.15, and instead change the calculations for service size to give a _separate_ result for conductor ampacity and required OCPD, in much the same way that oversized OCPD can be used with a given conductor ampacity for specific loads such as motors or welders.

-Jon


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