250-122 for long feeders

Status
Not open for further replies.

mshields

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
If you are going a substantial distance with a feeder such that you have to increase phase conductors for voltage drop, you would never have to increase the Equipment Ground accordingly would you?
 

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
If you are going a substantial distance with a feeder such that you have to increase phase conductors for voltage drop, you would never have to increase the Equipment Ground accordingly would you?
Yes, and for the same basic reason: impedance, especially under fault conditions.
 

shortcircuit2

Senior Member
Location
South of Bawstin
Well...there is a new twist for 2020...ungrounded conductor increases in size for 310.15(B) ambient correction or 310.15(C) more than 3 current carrying conductors are excluded from the rule. But, increase for voltage drop on long runs would need EGC up-sizing proportionately...well unless (new exception) some qualified person (smaht enginear) can prove otherwise in accordance with 250.4(A)(5) or (B)(4)
 

bwat

EE
Location
NC
Occupation
EE
Well...there is a new twist for 2020...ungrounded conductor increases in size for 310.15(B) ambient correction or 310.15(C) more than 3 current carrying conductors are excluded from the rule...

Wasn’t this already (possibly) the case? Or at least debatably so? Perhaps it is just clarified now. The wording has been something like “...increased in size from the minimum size that has sufficient ampacity for the intended installation...”

I’ve heard reasonable arguments that this means that the ungrounded conductor size you start with are AFTER temp corrections and CCCs in a raceway considerations. Because THAT is the minimum size for the intended installation (or at least that’s what the argument is). Any increase after that adjusted size, such as for VD, would mean an increase in EGC is needed.
 

Carultch

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
Wasn’t this already (possibly) the case? Or at least debatably so? Perhaps it is just clarified now. The wording has been something like “...increased in size from the minimum size that has sufficient ampacity for the intended installation...”

I’ve heard reasonable arguments that this means that the ungrounded conductor size you start with are AFTER temp corrections and CCCs in a raceway considerations. Because THAT is the minimum size for the intended installation (or at least that’s what the argument is). Any increase after that adjusted size, such as for VD, would mean an increase in EGC is needed.

It was already the case. 2014 and 2017 both specified "minimum size that has sufficient ampacity for the intended installation". I call this the "minimum local size" when working with this rule, the starting point for this calculation. I.e. the size you need, if length were not significant. Bundling adjustment and ambient temperature correction are already factors that apply independent of length.

It helps that it is more directly specified what the calculation is supposed to be, so that the user doesn't need to infer it from several other rules.
 

Hv&Lv

Senior Member
Location
-
Occupation
Engineer/Technician
Wasn’t this already (possibly) the case? Or at least debatably so? Perhaps it is just clarified now. The wording has been something like “...increased in size from the minimum size that has sufficient ampacity for the intended installation...”

I’ve heard reasonable arguments that this means that the ungrounded conductor size you start with are AFTER temp corrections and CCCs in a raceway considerations. Because THAT is the minimum size for the intended installation (or at least that’s what the argument is). Any increase after that adjusted size, such as for VD, would mean an increase in EGC is needed.
Yes, that was my thinking also. Correction factors didn’t need upsizing EGC.
upsizing for VD does.
that’s where the inspector got me..:(
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Well...there is a new twist for 2020...ungrounded conductor increases in size for 310.15(B) ambient correction or 310.15(C) more than 3 current carrying conductors are excluded from the rule. But, increase for voltage drop on long runs would need EGC up-sizing proportionately...well unless (new exception) some qualified person (smart engineer) can prove otherwise in accordance with 250.4(A)(5) or (B)(4)

That makes sense. If I have 100' run with three #12 (H,N,EGC) conductors or the same 100' run with 30 CCC's the size of the EGC does not need to be increased for the 30 CCC's because it will function the same in either case. This section is revamped just about every code cycle because it's poorly written and difficult to understand, it would be better to just size the EGC according to the ungrounded conductor size. I believe that Don has been pushing that code change for a while and it makes sense. No calcuation required just look at the ungrounded conductor size and size the EGC accordingly.
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
Occupation
Retired
Seems like with parallel conductors 250.122(B) is not well defined under either the 2017 or 2020 wording. Example:

190A feeder, one conduit, no temperature correction. You could use (3) 250 kcmil Al conductors for a 75C ampacity of 205A. Or you could use (6) 1/0 Al conductors for a 75C ampacity of 192A after the 0.8 adjustment factor. (2) 1/0 conductors have an area of 211.2 kcmil.

So if you choose to use 250 kcmil Al conductors, have the ungrounded conductors been "increased in size"?

Cheers, Wayne
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Seems like with parallel conductors 250.122(B) is not well defined under either the 2017 or 2020 wording. Example:

190A feeder, one conduit, no temperature correction. You could use (3) 250 kcmil Al conductors for a 75C ampacity of 205A. Or you could use (6) 1/0 Al conductors for a 75C ampacity of 192A after the 0.8 adjustment factor. (2) 1/0 conductors have an area of 211.2 kcmil.

So if you choose to use 250 kcmil Al conductors, have the ungrounded conductors been "increased in size"?

Cheers, Wayne

I would say that the 250's have not been increased in size. You chose to run one set (a design choice) and 250's are the minimum size for the 200 amp feeder. Another example of the unneeded complexity of the dumb calculations required. Just size the ungrounded conductors for the feeder and then look on the table for the corresponding EGC. Oh yeah we still can't do that. :rolleyes:
 

Carultch

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
Seems like with parallel conductors 250.122(B) is not well defined under either the 2017 or 2020 wording.

You likely couldn't parallel in that example, without going out of your way to terminate them in the first place, since most 200A and less equipment is built with the expectation that you'll only use one set. So it would make sense that if you end up using only one set, your starting point in this calculation, is just one set. It would be unreasonable for you to calculate all possibilities of parallel sets, just to find the absolute minimum KCMIL of wire you could use for the amps.

Where it is ambiguous, is in the event that upsizing causes you to increase the number of parallel sets. Consider a 400A circuit with 1x 600 kcmil Cu as your default size. Then you desire to upsize to 2x400 kcmil Cu, to curtail voltage drop. The default size would be 2x3/0 Cu, when you use two sets. So what becomes the upsize ratio? (2*400)/600 = 1.33? Or 2*400/(2*168) = 2.38?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top