ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
UL 508A SPACING
by ale348 - 03/29/24 01:09 AM
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
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 (ale348), 302 guests, and 14 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#97792 03/22/06 06:23 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,374
R
Moderator
I made a 2008 proposal to delete the 334.80 derating requirement, based on the allowance of 310.15(A)(2) exception. I am interested to see what panel 7 says about it.


Ryan Jackson,
Salt Lake City
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
 

#97793 03/23/06 04:19 PM
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 64
E
Member
Quote
eprice- I think you are mistakenly using 310.15(A) because 334.80 specifically says that "B" applies and using your approach it would rarely be the case where there would be derating of NM cables. And I do understand the Exception in "A" of 310.15.

George Little,

Well, here is how I think these sections work together. I agree that 334.80 does not reference 310.15(A). It tells us how to calculate the ampacity that would apply to the part of the circuit that is in the hole and it uses 310.15(B) to do that. When we're done with that step, we have two (maybe more) portions of the circuit that have different ampacities. Now comes the step where we determine the ampacity of the circuit as a whole. To do so we have to go to 310.15(A). When we get there, we find that the exception to 310.15(A)(2) nullifies the calculation we just did in the first step, because it allows us to apply the ampacity of the portion of the circuit that is not in the hole, to the portion of the circuit that is in the hole. I agree with Ryan, in that, IMO, the second paragraph of 334.80 will hardly ever (only when we have a very short total circuit length) have any relevance, because of the allowance in the exception to 310.15(A)(2).

Edit to add: I do believe that because of the exception in 310.15(A)(2), the derating of NM cable is not necessary as often as many believe. If they are bundled for say 24", then the length of conductors not bundled would need to be less than 20 feet for derating to be necessary. I don't know that I would call that circumstance rare, but it is often not the case.

[This message has been edited by eprice (edited 03-23-2006).]

#97794 03/25/06 12:28 PM
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 751
E
Member
Ryan,
I did ask Jeff Sargent of NFPA if he thought 310.15(A)(2)exc. (10 foot or 10% rule) cancelled 334.80's second paragraph, and he answered it would seem that it does.
Plus the fact that up to four cables of small conductors can be bundled without regard for derating anyway. If you do the math, you still will be allowed to connect #14s to a 15 amp cb, #12s to a 20, and #10s to a 30 amp cb.


Earl
Page 2 of 2 1 2

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