code articles
- Thread starter linwue
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: code articles
It is possible under some conditions that 210.4(D) could require this.
Don
It is possible under some conditions that 210.4(D) could require this.
Don
Re: code articles
Don, if each feed leg or phase is identified per 210.4(D), there would still be no restriction on identifying the switch legs another color other than these.
Example; LV circuits; Black, Red, Blue, switch legs Pink
HV circuits; Brown, Orange, Yellow, switch legs Purple
Roger
Don, if each feed leg or phase is identified per 210.4(D), there would still be no restriction on identifying the switch legs another color other than these.
Example; LV circuits; Black, Red, Blue, switch legs Pink
HV circuits; Brown, Orange, Yellow, switch legs Purple
Roger
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: code articles
Roger,
The switch leg is part of the ciruit and 210.4(D) requires identification as to phase and voltage. In my opinion this requirement applies to the switch leg as well as the hot.
Don
Roger,
The switch leg is part of the ciruit and 210.4(D) requires identification as to phase and voltage. In my opinion this requirement applies to the switch leg as well as the hot.
Don
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: code articles
IMO 210.4(D) is easily misunderstood.
It only applies to multiwire branch circuits.
So in this switch leg question we need to know if the branch circuit is two wire or multiwire.
In my experience many people try to apply 210.4(D) to every conductor in a building.
Also isn't 210.4(D) saying by each phase and system.
If I use Brown, Orange, Yellow for 480, then Black, Red, Blue for the first 208/120 system won't I have to come up with new colors or another means of identifying each additional 208/120 systems?
The buildings we do have many separately derived 208/120 systems.
Bob
[ December 01, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
IMO 210.4(D) is easily misunderstood.
It only applies to multiwire branch circuits.
So in this switch leg question we need to know if the branch circuit is two wire or multiwire.
In my experience many people try to apply 210.4(D) to every conductor in a building.
Also isn't 210.4(D) saying by each phase and system.
If I use Brown, Orange, Yellow for 480, then Black, Red, Blue for the first 208/120 system won't I have to come up with new colors or another means of identifying each additional 208/120 systems?
The buildings we do have many separately derived 208/120 systems.
Bob
[ December 01, 2004, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: code articles
Bob,
I've never read it as applying to each 208/120 volt wye system seperately, but I see that it can be read that way. And I did assume that the switch leg in question was part of a multiwire branch circuit.
Note that in the 2005 code this rule has been moved and changed. It is now found in 210.5(C) and applies to all ungrounded conductors of the premises wiring system, not just conductors of multiwire branch circuits. However it only requires identification by system and not by system and phase as now required.
Not sure how I will deal with this. I have buildings that have 3 phase 5kV, 3 phase 4 wire 480, 3 phase 3 wire 240, 208/120 wye, 120/240 single phase, 24vac, 24vdc and others that I can't think of right now.
Don
Bob,
I've never read it as applying to each 208/120 volt wye system seperately, but I see that it can be read that way. And I did assume that the switch leg in question was part of a multiwire branch circuit.
Note that in the 2005 code this rule has been moved and changed. It is now found in 210.5(C) and applies to all ungrounded conductors of the premises wiring system, not just conductors of multiwire branch circuits. However it only requires identification by system and not by system and phase as now required.
Not sure how I will deal with this. I have buildings that have 3 phase 5kV, 3 phase 4 wire 480, 3 phase 3 wire 240, 208/120 wye, 120/240 single phase, 24vac, 24vdc and others that I can't think of right now.
Don
Re: code articles
Don, I can see how it could be interpreted to apply to the switch legs also, but I can not see a reason for it.
Why would a switch leg in a building served by multiple sources need to be marked the same as the phase conductor where a building with one source wouldn't need this?
The phase conductors would not really be an issue at a switch leg connection point.
If we had a box with say 5 three ways fed from circuit #2, we could have one heck of a mess if someone made a mistake on just one wire. (this would have to be two)
I think the 05 wording has simply corrected this.
We also have many jobs with more than two sources, one has 28v DC, 208Y/120v 60HZ, 208Y/120v 400HZ,(MG) and 277/480v 60HZ.
Roger
[ December 01, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
Don, I can see how it could be interpreted to apply to the switch legs also, but I can not see a reason for it.
Why would a switch leg in a building served by multiple sources need to be marked the same as the phase conductor where a building with one source wouldn't need this?
The phase conductors would not really be an issue at a switch leg connection point.
If we had a box with say 5 three ways fed from circuit #2, we could have one heck of a mess if someone made a mistake on just one wire. (this would have to be two)
I think the 05 wording has simply corrected this.
We also have many jobs with more than two sources, one has 28v DC, 208Y/120v 60HZ, 208Y/120v 400HZ,(MG) and 277/480v 60HZ.
Roger
[ December 01, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: code articles
Roger,
Don
Roger,
I think that the '05 wording is a big step backwards. One of the reasons for requiring intentification by phase on a multiwire circuit was to help prevent grounded conductor overloading. Under the '05 code all of the 120/240 phase (ungrounded) conductors could be black, the 208/120 red, and the 480/277 blue and meet the rule. That was not permitted in the 02 code.
Don
Re: code articles
Don, I don't see where overloading a grounded conductor would be more likely to happen in a Multiwire circuit of a building served by more than one voltage source than it would be in a building served by only one voltage source, and phase identification is not required in this situation.
Roger
Don, I don't see where overloading a grounded conductor would be more likely to happen in a Multiwire circuit of a building served by more than one voltage source than it would be in a building served by only one voltage source, and phase identification is not required in this situation.
If only one of those sources were present it is permitted.
Roger
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: code articles
Roger,
Yes, it can and does happen where there is only one voltage system in a building. I think the current (2002) rule was the result of an atempt to put color codes back into the code. They couldn't get the color codes adopted and took what they could get as a step toward color codes.
Don
[ December 01, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
Roger,
Yes, it can and does happen where there is only one voltage system in a building. I think the current (2002) rule was the result of an atempt to put color codes back into the code. They couldn't get the color codes adopted and took what they could get as a step toward color codes.
Don
[ December 01, 2004, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: code articles
The only problem I see with color codes is the supply house is always out of the color you need.
[ December 01, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
The only problem I see with color codes is the supply house is always out of the color you need.
[ December 01, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: hurk27 ]
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: code articles
Roger,
Don
Roger,
I have mixed feelings on that. It would be nice and speed things up, but if we start relying on the colors without checking someone will get hurt, because not everyone will be following the rules. Sometimes I think that it would be much safer if all conductors were black.
Don
peter d
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
Re: code articles
If you you use orange to identify the high leg of a 3 phase 4 wire 240 volt system, you are then forbidden from using orange to identify a 277/480 volt conductor, correct? Or is some overlap of colors allowed?
I am opposed to any type of color code being adopted in the NEC because I think this is a design issue, and condcutor color choice should remain at the discretion of designers and installers. I don't see how conductor insulation color has any bearing on safety. Anyone who assumes a color means something plays a dangerous game.
Don, Roger, with you extensive lists it looks like you quickly run out of color choices. How do you handle this? Numbering?
If you you use orange to identify the high leg of a 3 phase 4 wire 240 volt system, you are then forbidden from using orange to identify a 277/480 volt conductor, correct? Or is some overlap of colors allowed?
I am opposed to any type of color code being adopted in the NEC because I think this is a design issue, and condcutor color choice should remain at the discretion of designers and installers. I don't see how conductor insulation color has any bearing on safety. Anyone who assumes a color means something plays a dangerous game.
Re: code articles
Don, I agree with Peter in that a conductors color would play no part in the safety issues, and with your strict OSHA stance, I would think you would see it the same way.
First of all; only a "Qualified Person" should be working on the system, second; it should be deenergized, third; if for some reason it couldn't be deenergized the proper PPE should be used and for this to happen it would take verifying the voltage regardless of colors, four; just because a color code may be standardized it wouldn't change the fact that a tester of some sort should be used (by the "Qualified Person") before working on the wiring.
Sorry, I just can't buy the safety issue as a viable reason not to have a color code.
Peter, there definatly is not enough colors to go around.
Wayne,
Roger
[ December 01, 2004, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
Don, I agree with Peter in that a conductors color would play no part in the safety issues, and with your strict OSHA stance, I would think you would see it the same way.
First of all; only a "Qualified Person" should be working on the system, second; it should be deenergized, third; if for some reason it couldn't be deenergized the proper PPE should be used and for this to happen it would take verifying the voltage regardless of colors, four; just because a color code may be standardized it wouldn't change the fact that a tester of some sort should be used (by the "Qualified Person") before working on the wiring.
Sorry, I just can't buy the safety issue as a viable reason not to have a color code.
Peter, there definatly is not enough colors to go around.
Wayne,
how true it is.
Roger
[ December 01, 2004, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: code articles
Roger,
Don
Roger,
The color shouldn't play a part in the safety, but it does. People take short cuts all the time and a universal color code just makes it easier for people to take the short cuts.
Don
Re: code articles
Don,
Roger
Don,
agreed, but that is already taking place industry wide because Black, Red, Blue is trade norm for LV (120/240v and 208Y/120v systems ) and Brown, Orange, Yellow is norm for 480Y/277v systems, this can be found from Key West Forida to Barrows Alaska.
Roger
- Status