Drill or not to drill

[ceb58]

Too tired to search. I have 3 - 14/3's and 1-14/2 in a bored hole that will be fire caulked. These 3 are travelers for 3-3way switches and a home run to a recpt.. So do I have 8 ccc or 11 ccc ? Cant remember if all of the conductors in the travelers have to be counted or just 2. Just need to know if I need to drill another hole

 

[GoldDigger]

Too tired to search. I have 3 - 14/3's and 1-14/2 in a bored hole that will be fire caulked. These 3 are travelers for 3-3way switches and a home run to a recpt.. So do I have 8 ccc or 11 ccc ? Cant remember if all of the conductors in the travelers have to be counted or just 2. Just need to know if I need to drill another hole

Only one of the two travelers can be carrying current at one time. And if your third conductor in each switch leg is just a neutral to satisfy the requirement that the neutral be present in a switch box, rather than the neutral for the actual lighting load, it would not be current carrying either, at least not until someone modified the wiring and connected a larger load than a presence sensor to the box. But 8 is a good conservative number.
Some inspectors would have objections to using 5 in the calculation.

 

[ceb58]

Only one of the two travelers can be carrying current at one time. And if your third conductor in each switch leg is just a neutral to satisfy the requirement that the neutral be present in a switch box, rather than the neutral for the actual lighting load, it would not be current carrying either, at least not until someone modified the wiring and connected a larger load than a presence sensor to the box. But 8 is a good conservative number.
Some inspectors would have objections to using 5 in the calculation.

Each neutral will go to the lighting loads. I agree 8 would be the number but what code section address this?

 

[GoldDigger]

Each neutral will go to the lighting loads. I agree 8 would be the number but what code section address this?

I do not think that there is a specific section discussing travelers, although there may be something in the Handbook, but it all comes down to the definition of Current Carrying Conductors, with one example in the explicit rules for MWBC.
If two conductors cannot (because of a mechanical lockout, the SPDT and DPDT switches) both carry current at the same time, they are not both CCCs.
It is even stronger for MWBCs in that the "neutral" is not counted since the total maximum current trough the whole set of wires cannot be more than the maximum total current for the case where the neutral is not carrying current. Even though in some cases the neutral will carry current from unbalanced phase loads.

 

[crtemp]

Only one of the two travelers can be carrying current at one time. And if your third conductor in each switch leg is just a neutral to satisfy the requirement that the neutral be present in a switch box, rather than the neutral for the actual lighting load, it would not be current carrying either, at least not until someone modified the wiring and connected a larger load than a presence sensor to the box. But 8 is a good conservative number.
Some inspectors would have objections to using 5 in the calculation.

Where does it say there must be a neutral in a switch box?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Too tired to search. I have 3 - 14/3's and 1-14/2 in a bored hole that will be fire caulked. These 3 are travelers for 3-3way switches and a home run to a recpt.. So do I have 8 ccc or 11 ccc ? Cant remember if all of the conductors in the travelers have to be counted or just 2. Just need to know if I need to drill another hole

That is not bundling.

Where does it say there must be a neutral in a switch box?

Nothing about a neutral but:

404.2
(C) Switches Controlling Lighting Loads. Where switches
control lighting loads supplied by a grounded general purpose
branch circuit, the grounded circuit conductor for the controlled
lighting circuit shall be provided at the switch location.

 

[crtemp]

That is not bundling.



Nothing about a neutral but:

404.2
(C) Switches Controlling Lighting Loads. Where switches
control lighting loads supplied by a grounded general purpose
branch circuit, the grounded circuit conductor for the controlled
lighting circuit shall be provided at the switch location.

I must not understand. I install switch loops all the time without any issues.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I must not understand. I install switch loops all the time without any issues.

New to 2011 NEC

 

[crtemp]

New to 2011 NEC

Weird. Inspectors in Washington must not care

 

[qcroanoke]

Too tired to search. I have 3 - 14/3's and 1-14/2 in a bored hole that will be fire caulked. These 3 are travelers for 3-3way switches and a home run to a recpt.. So do I have 8 ccc or 11 ccc ? Cant remember if all of the conductors in the travelers have to be counted or just 2. Just need to know if I need to drill another hole

I seem to remember being quoted chapter and verse that supported not counting it not to long ago but a search did not turn it up.
But other searches seemed to indicate it needs to be counted but they were old threads.
In other words flip a coin or wait and see what others say.

 

[RichB]

Weird. Inspectors in Washington must not care

Washington is still on the 08 code--we might adopt the 14 code I haven't heard for sure though.

 

[fmtjfw]

I seem to remember being quoted chapter and verse that supported not counting it not to long ago but a search did not turn it up.
But other searches seemed to indicate it needs to be counted but they were old threads.
In other words flip a coin or wait and see what others say.

2014 is supposed to clear up that you only count one of each pair of travelers as a CCC. I put in the request. Somebody changed the text into complete word salad.

Table 310.15(B)(3)(a) Adjustment Factors for More Than
Three Current-Carrying Conductors in a Raceway or Cable
... text following table
Number of conductors is the total number of conductors in the raceway
or cable, including spare conductors. The count shall be adjusted
in accordance with 310.15(B)(5) and (6), and shall not include conductors
that are connected to electrical components but that cannot be
simultaneously energized. [ROP 6?40]

so that now it reads that you must count spare conductors.

 

[iwire]

so that now it reads that you must count spare conductors.

I interpret that to say 'don't run spare conductors'.

 

[Gregg Harris]

I interpret that to say 'don't run spare conductors'.

???

"including spare conductors"

 

[ceb58]

Thanks guys, passed inspection with flying colors. I know the inspector and he knows my work. He just looked around a little and signed off on it. Besides he was too busy tearing the GC up over the new energy codes

 

[don_resqcapt19]

2014 is supposed to clear up that you only count one of each pair of travelers as a CCC. I put in the request. Somebody changed the text into complete word salad.

Table 310.15(B)(3)(a) Adjustment Factors for More Than
Three Current-Carrying Conductors in a Raceway or Cable
... text following table
Number of conductors is the total number of conductors in the raceway
or cable, including spare conductors. The count shall be adjusted
in accordance with 310.15(B)(5) and (6), and shall not include conductors
that are connected to electrical components but that cannot be
simultaneously energized. [ROP 6?40]

so that now it reads that you must count spare conductors.

If you read the ROP, you will see that the rule originally required you to count all conductors in the raceway for the purposes of derating. The change was made without any proposal or approval. This change puts it back to the way it was supposed to be, with the provision that conductors that cannot be simultaneously energized are not required to be counted. The substantiation said it was always the intent that spares be counted.

 

[iwire]

???

"including spare conductors"

Which means as a guy contemplating running some spares I will decide not to.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

How would it work if you didn't count the spares?...if the use of the spares caused additional derating you would have to change the OCPD for the conductors that were in use at the time of the original installation, or pull the original conductors out and pull larger ones in. Or are you saying, even when you put the spares to use, you don't have to count them for derating purposes?

 

[GoldDigger]

How would it work if you didn't count the spares?...if the use of the spares caused additional derating you would have to change the OCPD for the conductors that were in use at the time of the original installation, or pull the original conductors out and pull larger ones in. Or are you saying, even when you put the spares to use, you don't have to count them for derating purposes?

Only if you use a spare to replace a damaged wire rather than to add an additional circuit.

 

[hurk27]

That is not bundling.

Mike you still have to derate if the hole is fire caulked as the OP indicated

Second paragraph of 334.80:

334.80 Where more than two NM cables containing two or
more current-carrying conductors are installed, without
maintaining spacing between the cables, through the same
opening in wood framing that is to be fire- or draft-stopped
using thermal insulation, caulk, or sealing foam, the allowable
ampacity of each conductor shall be adjusted in accordance
with Table 310.15(B)(2)(a) and the provisions of
310.15(A)(2), Exception, shall not apply.