Feeder? Subfeeder?

[iwire]

I think that it was to put SE cable in line with NM cable which already had the 60 degree limitation. In practical use IMO there was no real substantiation.

I agree, the ROP on the change pretty much says that, they said the same substantiation for NM would apply to SE.

I believe that NM and SE used the same should be treated the same, just not so sure NM should have been limited to 60 C in the first place.

 

[jaylectricity]

I agree, the ROP on the change pretty much says that, they said the same substantiation for NM would apply to SE.

I believe that NM and SE used the same should be treated the same, just not so sure NM should have been limited to 60 C in the first place.

But are they actually the same? Do they have the same insulation on the conductors? The same jackets on the cable? Are they supported the same way? Grouped with other cables the same way?

To me, nothing suggests that the two would have the same limitations.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

My understanding was that they (whoever they are) tested SE cable under full load for many hours --- and the cable showed signs of breaking down where the fire caulking was installed.

 

[iwire]

But are they actually the same? Do they have the same insulation on the conductors? The same jackets on the cable? Are they supported the same way? Grouped with other cables the same way?

To me, nothing suggests that the two would have the same limitations.

What do you see as different other than the name and lack of a paper filler?

The code rules for installtion are the same and they are both constructed with 90 C conductors.

 

[jaylectricity]

But are they actually the same? Do they have the same insulation on the conductors? The same jackets on the cable? Are they supported the same way? Grouped with other cables the same way?

To me, nothing suggests that the two would have the same limitations.What do you see as different other than the name and lack of a paper filler?

The code rules for installtion are the same and they are both constructed with 90 C conductors.

If the jackets of the cables aren't the same material and density, then the ambient temperature within could be different. We routinely staple two NM cables together which doesn't happen with SER. Generally holes for SER are dedicated to that cable whereas we typically group 2-6 NM cables through holes in studs and joists (depending on fire-stopping).

Obviously I didn't test the various materials in a warehouse, I was just suggesting that running the cables for the same kind of purposes doesn't mean they have the same ampacities.

 

[ndc81167]

i have to throw my hat into the ring here ,,,

if in the 2005NEC art338 b4
says for you to go to (parts 1&2 of 334 EXPECT OR EXCLUDE art 334.8)
then where do you go to apply the ampacity rules for an SE cable being used
as a branch circut

 

[raider1]

i have to throw my hat into the ring here ,,,

if in the 2005NEC art338 b4
says for you to go to (parts 1&2 of 334 EXPECT OR EXCLUDE art 334.8)
then where do you go to apply the ampacity rules for an SE cable being used
as a branch circut

Under the 2005, because 338.10(B)(4)(a) said excluding 334.80 you would use the ampacity of the conductors in the Type SE cable and also the temperature limitations of the terminals the SE cable is connected to.

In most cases you could use the 75 Degree column of Table 310.16.

Under the 2008 because we now must comply with 334.80 SE cable is limited to the 60 degree column of Table 310.16.

Chris

 

[ndc81167]

yes , that what i thought,,, just needed clearification...
basically there reverting back to the prior codes 1999,1996, 1993 etc,,,


Thanks,,

 

[rodneee]

2 2 2 4 ser

2 2 2 4 ser

like many others we put a 100 amp breaker on a sub panel fed with 2 2 2 4 ser. so now you are telling after all these applications the only time we ever got it right was when the breaker bins were out of 90's or 100's and the foreman said just go with an 80 amp!!!

 

[raider1]

like many others we put a 100 amp breaker on a sub panel fed with 2 2 2 4 ser. so now you are telling after all these applications the only time we ever got it right was when the breaker bins were out of 90's or 100's and the foreman said just go with an 80 amp!!!

Correct, a 100 amp breaker is not permitted to protect an Aluminum 2-2-2-4 SER cable that is supplying a "sub-panel". This was the case for many code cycles.

Chris