voltage drop

Status
Not open for further replies.

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Retired Electrical Engineer
I think that the person who wrote that example for Mike Holt's book should have taken one more step. After calculating that a #14 would give you acceptable voltage drop, the person should have then said something along the following lines: "However, since the maximum current that we are allowed to push through a #14 is 15 amps, we will need to use a #12 for this particular installation."

Mike is always grateful to be informed of possible errors, omissions, or points of confusion within any of his published materials. Here is a link, from his main page, that you can use to send him feedback:
http://www.mikeholt.com/PopContactForm.php?p=Sean&subject=GENERAL
 

kingpb

Senior Member
Location
SE USA as far as you can go
Occupation
Engineer, Registered
The answer you (calvin1) are calculating is correct for what you have determined. The issue is in the fact that there are TWO factors that govern the determination of wire size, as follows:

1. The maximum current in the wire
2. The maximum permissible voltage drop in the wire

The procedure is to find the smallest wire that meets both factors, then choose the LARGER size.

The formula being applied by "calvin1" is determining the minimum size wire that will work for the maximum voltage drop, i.e. Factor 2. The other posts are applying the principle of the minimum size wire required to carry the maximum current, i.e. Factor 1.

In practical design, Factor 1 will usually be determined first, since it takes a minimum wire size to carry the current of the load. Makes no practical sense to start with a conductor smaller than that. Then based on that wire size, it is checked for voltage drop. If the voltage drop is higher than desired, the conductor is increased until it meets the criteria. Which in essence satisfies Factor 2.

Using the formula that determines minimum cmil size would help reduce the number of calculation iterations. To prove this, what can be done as practice would be to select the cable from Factor 1, then keep increasing the distance of the circuit; performing Factor 2 calculation each time. Eventually, you will see that the minimum size required to meet VD would be the same, then as the distance continues to increase will end up being larger.

Hence, why it is important to meet both factors.
 

calvin1

Member
Location
delaware
thank you again for the responses, I hope you can see that the reason the I was not getting this was the fact that the "formula" was to determing the conductor size and I made the mistake of thinking that it could be used to find the full answer to conductor size with out any other determinations. I see now that it is a part of line loss calculation, similar to s derating the 90 degree wire for higher temperature rating, but never over fusing it .

Thanks again , I hope you can see where my confusion came from and I was not trying to be a jerk about it.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
thank you again for the responses, I hope you can see that the reason the I was not getting this was the fact that the "formula" was to determing the conductor size and I made the mistake of thinking that it could be used to find the full answer to conductor size with out any other determinations. I see now that it is a part of line loss calculation, similar to s derating the 90 degree wire for higher temperature rating, but never over fusing it .

Thanks again , I hope you can see where my confusion came from and I was not trying to be a jerk about it.

I wouldn't say it is similar to derating for temperature. Length has direct impact on voltage drop but does not for temperature deration.
 

calvin1

Member
Location
delaware
what I meant there was, you can derate the conductor, but never lower than minimum ampacity required for the conductor, as in the resistance example I did.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
what I meant there was, you can derate the conductor, but never lower than minimum ampacity required for the conductor, as in the resistance example I did.

Derating a conductor lowers the maximum ampacity of the conductor.

Remember that ampacity for NEC purposes is what the conductor can carry without overheating the conductor insulation or the terminations. The conductor itself is physically capable of carrying much more but will have an increase in operating temperature as well as an in increased voltage drop across it.
 

stevearne

Senior Member
Location
Rapid City, SD
That's because the question in the Mike Holt exam didn't ask you to determine if the ampacity of the conductor was sufficient for the load, they only asked what conductor size would be need to limit the voltage drop...



But in their example, they give a load current of 18A, and end up with a conductor (#14) that has an ampacity of 20 from T310.16. So their example doesn't have the same problem that yours did. (They don't address the proper OCP for the #14)

There are some good replies in this post- thanks everyone for helping explain this issue.

In the 2011 Exam Prep, the following note has been added:

Note: If the problem does not state that this is a continuous load, assume that it is noncontinuous. Section 210.19(A)(1) requires that the conductors for a noncontinuous load be sized not less than 100 percent of the load and 210.20(A) requires that the overcurrent protection device must be not less than 100 percent of the noncontinuous load. The noncontinuous load is 18A so the conductor and overcurrent device must be sized at 18A.

The 14 AWG conductor required for voltage drop is rated for 20A at 75?C according to 110.14(C) and Table 310.15(B)(16). However, 240.4(D) requires that 14 AWG can't be protected by an overcurrent device rated more than 15A, so this will not work. We need to size up to 12 AWG conductors protected at 20A.

-----------------------------------------

That note was not included in the 2008 version, but the examples previous and following it included notes explaining this principle. The Voltage drop unit is Unit 8, in a previous Unit (6) we had already explained the rules in the NEC for sizing conductors and overcurrent protection, and these rules must all still be adhered to. Please remember also that voltage drop is included as a recommendation in an informational note, which is not an enforceable part of the NEC. All of the rules on conductor sizing for ampacity in Article 310 and overcurrent protection in Article 240 must be applied.

Thanks again to everyone who helps with your great input to this forum. Have a great 2012!
 
Last edited:

stevearne

Senior Member
Location
Rapid City, SD
so is there a practical use for that formula?

Sure. The voltage drop formula can be transposed to find any of the variables that you need to know. The formula you asked about solves for Cmil, so it tells you what the minimum size conductor is required to stay within a certain voltage drop limit. The formula you asked about from the Exam Prep book told us that a 14 AWG copper conductor was large enough to limit the voltage drop to 3% of a 460V source when loaded to 18A, 3-phase and with a distance of 100 ft to the load. As already explained in this thread, that tells you what the minimum size conductor is to meet your voltage drop limits, but the conductor may still need to be larger to meet the NEC requirements for minimum conductor ampacity [Table 310.15(B)(16)] and overcurrent protection [240.4].

The other variations of the voltage drop formula can be used to find:
amount of volts dropped: Evd = (1.732 x K x I x D)/Cmil
maximum distance to stay within certain voltage drop: D = (Cmil x Evd)/(1.732 x K x I)
Maximum load allowed on conductors to stay within certain voltage drop: I = (Cmil x Evd)/(1.732 x K x D)
[these were all 3-phase, replace 1.732 with 2 for single phase when the distance (D) is one way to the load]

Likewise with all of these formulas, once you have voltage drop approximations everything must still follow the Code. You must size conductors according to the rules of Article 310 and protect them according to Article 240.
 

stevearne

Senior Member
Location
Rapid City, SD
Sure. The voltage drop formula can be transposed to find any of the variables that you need to know. The formula you asked about solves for Cmil, so it tells you what the minimum size conductor is required to stay within a certain voltage drop limit. The formula you asked about from the Exam Prep book told us that a 14 AWG copper conductor was large enough to limit the voltage drop to 3% of a 460V source when loaded to 18A, 3-phase and with a distance of 100 ft to the load. As already explained in this thread, that tells you what the minimum size conductor is to meet your voltage drop limits, but the conductor may still need to be larger to meet the NEC requirements for minimum conductor ampacity [Table 310.15(B)(16)] and overcurrent protection [240.4].

The other variations of the voltage drop formula can be used to find:
amount of volts dropped: Evd = (1.732 x K x I x D)/Cmil
maximum distance to stay within certain voltage drop: D = (Cmil x Evd)/(1.732 x K x I)
Maximum load allowed on conductors to stay within certain voltage drop: I = (Cmil x Evd)/(1.732 x K x D)
[these were all 3-phase, replace 1.732 with 2 for single phase when the distance (D) is one way to the load]

Likewise with all of these formulas, once you have voltage drop approximations everything must still follow the Code. You must size conductors according to the rules of Article 310 and protect them according to Article 240.

Let's make a little change to the original problem, and I think you will appreciate the results more. Let's change the distance to 400 ft. to the load.

Now doing the math, Cmil = (1.732 x 12.90 x 18A x 400 ft.)/14.40V
Cmil = 11,171.4

go to Chapter 9, Table 8 and in the Circular Mils column you will find that the first conductor that gives us at least 11,171.4 cmils or greater is 8 AWG.
8 AWG has an ampacity [Table 310.15(B)(16)] sufficient for the 18A load, and it can be protected by a 20A overcurrent device with no issues. We did not have to change the answer from the voltage drop problem to meet any NEC requirements, because with this situation the voltage drop formula required a larger conductor than the NEC rules did. But if we wanted to put more than 18A on it, we would have to re-calculate because the voltage drop formula is based on the actual load, not the conductor ampacity.

[Note that the ampacity table is Table 310.16 in the 2008 NEC, but it is now Table 310.15(B)(16) in the 2011 NEC]
 

calvin1

Member
Location
delaware
First let me say that I am not trying to find fault with the book, I think it is a great book and have the greatest respect for mike holt and the people of his organization and the memebers of this forum. I think that possibly the formula for Vd, may not be able to be used under all conditons ( ie. larger amperages and distances ) .

What I am seeing here is that the formula will work under certian conditons and give you a useable answer, but the orignal problem I had, the answer was almost 1/3 cmil that was even able to handle the current with no voltage drop.. 400 cmil vs. 1250 cmil.

It was stated by one of the posters that it didn't take into accont the heat generated by the conductor under full load, and that being only able to calculate the parameters of resistance , amps, length and so on, and you can't blindly use a formula without knowing what you were using it for. Also that this formula would give you the minimum answer and they you would calculate it from there. In my example the answer was so far off you would have been better off starting with the 1250 minimum ampacity for the 574 amps and use the original formula Vd, and the size up as needed.

Unlike the basic ohms law p=I x E can be rearanged to suit your desired answer as in I = P/E , the original Vd formula is not able to be used in this way. And this is the part that was confusing me that the formula rearanged was not really accurate.

I am just trying to fully understand if the formula can be used as an absolute as ohms law can be ( of course ohms law is absoulte with dc and ac resistance) so am I on the right track here or still missing something? thanks for taking the time to help me understand this, and maybe other people too!
 

Linehand

New member
Location
S.W. Michigan
thanks that does make perfect sense, but what about the mike holt formula I quoted above, they did not figure out the ampacity first, they found the cmil, buy using the desired amperage that would be available at the load at a certain Vd, ?

Calvin I'm crawling in my skin reading your posts. Please listen to all who have answered. You are putting the cart before the horse as stated. You must first calculate the conductor size to know the voltage drop.....
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
First let me say that I am not trying to find fault with the book, I think it is a great book and have the greatest respect for mike holt and the people of his organization and the memebers of this forum. I think that possibly the formula for Vd, may not be able to be used under all conditons ( ie. larger amperages and distances ) .

What I am seeing here is that the formula will work under certian conditons and give you a useable answer, but the orignal problem I had, the answer was almost 1/3 cmil that was even able to handle the current with no voltage drop.. 400 cmil vs. 1250 cmil.

It was stated by one of the posters that it didn't take into accont the heat generated by the conductor under full load, and that being only able to calculate the parameters of resistance , amps, length and so on, and you can't blindly use a formula without knowing what you were using it for. Also that this formula would give you the minimum answer and they you would calculate it from there. In my example the answer was so far off you would have been better off starting with the 1250 minimum ampacity for the 574 amps and use the original formula Vd, and the size up as needed.

Unlike the basic ohms law p=I x E can be rearanged to suit your desired answer as in I = P/E , the original Vd formula is not able to be used in this way. And this is the part that was confusing me that the formula rearanged was not really accurate.

I am just trying to fully understand if the formula can be used as an absolute as ohms law can be ( of course ohms law is absoulte with dc and ac resistance) so am I on the right track here or still missing something? thanks for taking the time to help me understand this, and maybe other people too!

The voltage drop formula you are using (which most of us use) is not absolute. Factoring in ambient temperature will make it even more accurate. The industry has accepted the formula as you use it to be close enough for most applications.

What you are not grasping is the fact that it is a formula for voltage drop only and has nothing to do with how much current a conductor can safely carry without damage to the insulation or raised termination temperatures.

When calculating minimum ampacity of a conductor length is one thing that is not considered.

When calculating voltage drop minimum NEC ampacity (call it temperature if you want because that is the result) is one thing that is not considered.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
How about I give another example.

Lets say you have a 50 amp load and a receptacle just next to the panel serving it with a total circuit length of 2 feet.

If I calculate voltage drop using 14 AWG for this circuit I come up with about .62 amps of drop (well less than 1% if @ 240 volts).

Would you say 14 AWG is acceptable for this circuit or would I need at least 8 AWG minimum like 310.16 requires?
 

stevearne

Senior Member
Location
Rapid City, SD
First let me say that I am not trying to find fault with the book, I think it is a great book and have the greatest respect for mike holt and the people of his organization and the memebers of this forum. I think that possibly the formula for Vd, may not be able to be used under all conditons ( ie. larger amperages and distances ) .

What I am seeing here is that the formula will work under certian conditons and give you a useable answer, but the orignal problem I had, the answer was almost 1/3 cmil that was even able to handle the current with no voltage drop.. 400 cmil vs. 1250 cmil.

It was stated by one of the posters that it didn't take into accont the heat generated by the conductor under full load, and that being only able to calculate the parameters of resistance , amps, length and so on, and you can't blindly use a formula without knowing what you were using it for. Also that this formula would give you the minimum answer and they you would calculate it from there. In my example the answer was so far off you would have been better off starting with the 1250 minimum ampacity for the 574 amps and use the original formula Vd, and the size up as needed.

Unlike the basic ohms law p=I x E can be rearanged to suit your desired answer as in I = P/E , the original Vd formula is not able to be used in this way. And this is the part that was confusing me that the formula rearanged was not really accurate.

I am just trying to fully understand if the formula can be used as an absolute as ohms law can be ( of course ohms law is absoulte with dc and ac resistance) so am I on the right track here or still missing something? thanks for taking the time to help me understand this, and maybe other people too!


sorry, but the voltage drop formula is definitely not an absolute. The K value we use is an average approximation. The "True K" value would have to be calculated on every conductor size, by multiplying the circular mil area of the conductor by its resistance per ft. I know at least one electrical engineer who just shudders at the use of 12.90 for a K value for copper, because it is not an absolute, but varies from one size conductor to another. For practical purposes of estimating voltage drop, the electrical industry has pretty much standardized on the average K values of 12.90 for copper and 21.20 of aluminum.

The voltage drop formula can be rearranged into the 4 transpositions that I previously posted, just like ohms law, and every form is just as accurate as the others.

Just remember that the voltage drop formula is for estimating just that: Voltage drop. It is not used to actually size the conductor. Other factors must be used to size the minimum conductor size required to meet the NEC requirements.

In the example we have looked at a case where we found that 14AWG met the voltage drop requirements with a distance of 100 ft., but other Code requirements would not allow us to use 20A protection on 14AWG, so we had to size it up to meet those requirements in 240.4(D). In the same circuit, extended to 400 ft, the 14AWG was no longer sufficient for the voltage drop, and we had to size the conductor up to 8 AWG, even though it was still protected by a 20A overcurrent protection device. If you failed to use the voltage drop formula to check this, and installed a smaller conductor, you might have experienced too low of a voltage at your load for proper operation.

In your original problem, you found by using the voltage drop formula that the minimum size conductor to keep your voltage drop within the 3% recommendation was 400 KCmils. So you should not be distressed when you actually look up the size of the conductor and find that you need something larger than 400 Kcmils to meet the NEC ampacity requirements of 310.16 [2008 version] because what you have done is confirm that voltage drop will not be a problem if you use anything larger than 400 Kcmil for this problem - meaning the minimum size of conductor that you select using Table 310.16 and appropriate overcurrent protection rules [240.4] is Code compliant and you do NOT have to increase it for voltage drop.

Remember the voltage drop formula is to estimate voltage drop, not to size the conductor. The conductor must be sized based on Code requirements. We are doing 2 distinctly different things here. If you are preparing for a road trip, you need to make sure your car has a fresh oil change. But you also need gasoline. Two separate requirements that both must be met.
 
Last edited:

david luchini

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Connecticut
Occupation
Engineer
What I am seeing here is that the formula will work under certian conditons and give you a useable answer, but the orignal problem I had, the answer was almost 1/3 cmil that was even able to handle the current with no voltage drop.. 400 cmil vs. 1250 cmil.

Calvin, there is another condition to factor in that you don't seem to be understanding as well.

I don't know of anyone who would run 1250mcm for a circuit with a load of 574 Amps. Parallel sets of conductors will likely be run as mentioned in earlier posts. Two sets of 350mcm would work for 574 Amp load and would give you 700 mcm for your VD calculation. This is closer to 1/2 cmil.

Or, if you wanted, you could use four sets of 1/0 AWG for your 574 Amps load. This would give you 422.4 mcm for your VD calculation, or 95% cmil.
 

calvin1

Member
Location
delaware
ok, I see what you are getting at now, sorry to make you skin crawl. It was the semantics of this statement :

Algebraic variations


Using basic algebra, you can apply the same basic formula to find one of the other variables if you already know the voltage drop. For example, suppose you want to know what size conductor you need to reduce the voltage drop to the desired level. Simply rearrange the formula. For three-phase, it would look like this: CM (3?) = 1.732 x K x I x D/VD. Of course, for single-phase calculations, you would use 2 instead of 1.732.

that led me to erroneous conclusion that is would find the proper sized conductor for the voltage drop.

thanks again for the explanations.
 

gar

Senior Member
Location
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Occupation
EE

calvin1

Member
Location
delaware
sorry gar,you of course are correct, I mentally do combine the power equation with ohms law, I guess so I can keem them in my memory together. I=er and P=ie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top