ECN Forum

New 110.24!

Posted By: HotLine1

New 110.24! - 10/28/10 01:16 PM

A 2011 added item in Article 110.

Fault current labels, placards etc.

Interesting??
Posted By: frenchelectrican

Re: New 110.24! - 11/27/10 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by HotLine1
A 2011 added item in Article 110.

Fault current labels, placards etc.

Interesting??


John.,

If that the case that mean we have to start to stack up all the stickers etc and also have to put in the X number of AFA { Avaibale Fault Amps }

That will be instering twist to the mix.

Merci,
Marc
Posted By: HotLine1

Re: New 110.24! - 11/27/10 03:36 PM

Marc:
Yes, that's what we will have to do! I did a CEU course on this (2 hrs CEUs) and was surprised that 19 guys showed up on a short notice schedule.

The meat of the course was the point-to-point method.
Posted By: leland

Re: New 110.24! - 11/28/10 07:31 AM

Just started dancing around the 2011 today.
On this topic: I see more of where 'WE' SHALL mark, hell,I'm (and you) are professionals!!!!!!!!!!! I am very much aware of determining the inherent risks with which I am working.!!

Seems to me... The code is now being written for those of whom do not.

With that, Do 'Ya think 'They' have or will read an NEC directive!!?

I don't have any problem marking for the next 'guy' mind you.

I do, however, have a problem setting myself up for a law suit from an under-non-qualified individual trying to save a buck.

Is this really the way to make electrical installations safer?

Sorry for the rant,this lil' thing just claws at me.
Posted By: HotLine1

Re: New 110.24! - 11/28/10 10:36 PM

Le:
As there is NO wording within 110.24 requiring any identification of the person/entity creating the label, or doing the calcs, how do you see one of our abundanance of lawyers coming after you, or any other individual?

Posted By: sparky

Re: New 110.24! - 12/01/10 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by leland
Just started dancing around the 2011 today.
On this topic: I see more of where 'WE' SHALL mark, hell,I'm (and you) are professionals!!!!!!!!!!! I am very much aware of determining the inherent risks with which I am working.!!

Seems to me... The code is now being written for those of whom do not.

With that, Do 'Ya think 'They' have or will read an NEC directive!!?

I don't have any problem marking for the next 'guy' mind you.

I do, however, have a problem setting myself up for a law suit from an under-non-qualified individual trying to save a buck.

Is this really the way to make electrical installations safer?

Sorry for the rant,this lil' thing just claws at me.


serving a carear that's one big fat seething double standard does get old

i'll grant you that.....

~S~
Posted By: JBD

Re: New 110.24! - 12/01/10 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by HotLine1
Le:
As there is NO wording within 110.24 requiring any identification of the person/entity creating the label, or doing the calcs, how do you see one of our abundanance of lawyers coming after you, or any other individual?


There isn't even any requirement to what values need to be put on the label.

An actually calculated value? - This is the hardest value to get, and i will change with time.
A maximum design value? - Some utilities provide this value to aid in selecting equipment ratings.
A minimum equipment rating value? - Some engineers base their AIC selection off of voltage levels without considering real world conditions.

For example:
I calculate a service as being 480V 24,850A.
The utility says they will never exceed 50,000A
The plans call for a minimum 65kAIC equipment at 480V
Posted By: HotLine1

Re: New 110.24! - 12/01/10 08:52 PM

JBD:

Care to expand on the above?
Did you calc from utility xfr to first disco means?
Did you 'spec' 65KAIC gear, or where did that number come from?

As you say some utilities provide a value, is that value at there pad mount terminals, or at the utility drop point?

Posted By: JBD

Re: New 110.24! - 12/01/10 09:38 PM

John,

The actual values do not matter. I am pointing out that there are different valid values that could be appear on the lable.

I am sure the hope is, the new requirement for a fault current value on a lable will help in enforcing 110.9 and 110.10, but without some guidance it is just something else that will be mis-applied.
Posted By: HotLine1

Re: New 110.24! - 12/02/10 01:00 AM

JBD:

Agree. I'm not looking forward to the first guy that picks a 'pie-in-the sky' number, and writes it on a label.

With new 110.14, there definitely will be a lot of growing pains, and a large learning curve for both ECs and AHJs. It should be interesting.

Maybe it may create some added work for you?

© 2019 ECN Electrical Forums