Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Mismatched wire gauges in a 240 volt, one phase street lighting system

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min without traffic from winged horses.
    Posts
    8,761
    Quote Originally Posted by tom baker View Post
    See #4
    4 answers to an electrical question
    1. Code answer
    2. AHJ answer
    3. Toms answer
    4. Truck answer
    What's on the truck answer gets to be number one on the list at times.
    Once in a while you get shown the light
    In the strangest of places if you look at it right. Robert Hunter

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    10,215
    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    You could run one conductor copper and the other aluminum if you wanted as long as minimum ampacity requirements are met and overcurrent protection rules are met.

    You can't mismatch conductors that are in parallel to one another for the purpose of making an overall higher current carrying capacity conductor.
    But would you?
    Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min without traffic from winged horses.
    Posts
    8,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    But would you?
    I wouldn't plan to but since there's no compromise in safety I would.
    Once in a while you get shown the light
    In the strangest of places if you look at it right. Robert Hunter

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    33,498
    Quote Originally Posted by Besoeker View Post
    But would you?
    What's on the truck rule kicks in sometimes. So does what is already there to work with rule.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    32,347
    If the plans called for #6 and he installed #8 there would be an issue but certainly not if the installer used a larger conductor as you stated
    They say I shot a man named Gray and took his wife to Italy
    She inherited a million bucks and when she died it came to me
    I can't help it if I'm lucky



  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    68
    Honestly this will be a non issue one month after installation because the wire will get stolen anyway. This happens all to frequently in my area of Texas at least, despite TxDOT placing concrete traffic barriers over pull boxes, burying pull boxes, etc. The lights will be out for months until they are replaced again with copper conductors. The municipalities started using aluminum conductors in the area and have seen a significant decrease in theft, but still have to repair the stripped conductors once the thief realizes they're aluminum they bail leaving a mess, but easier to repair than long runs of missing conductor.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    128
    The only issue I would see is with the listing of the fixture itself. If the manufacturer doesnot explicitly state that upsizing is ok for their product there might be a problem with warranty issues. Granted being a govt project, I'm not certain warranties are an issue...

    Plus if the picture calls for #8s, I would imagine that would be the issue the inspector is having.
    Unless, you resubmitted to accommodate for the #6. My inspector looks at the picture and it better match or he fails the inspection. Rightly so I suppose, but certainly circumstances don't allow for such bureaucratic hoops when time is of the essence.

    The inspector may also cite 110.12 for workmanlike installation violations? That might be a stretch, I realize, but it seems to be a go to for some inspectors who can't cite a section immediately or if there is no section to cite.

    cheers.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    33,498
    Quote Originally Posted by wrobotronic View Post
    The only issue I would see is with the listing of the fixture itself. If the manufacturer doesnot explicitly state that upsizing is ok for their product there might be a problem with warranty issues. Granted being a govt project, I'm not certain warranties are an issue...

    Plus if the picture calls for #8s, I would imagine that would be the issue the inspector is having.
    Unless, you resubmitted to accommodate for the #6. My inspector looks at the picture and it better match or he fails the inspection. Rightly so I suppose, but certainly circumstances don't allow for such bureaucratic hoops when time is of the essence.

    The inspector may also cite 110.12 for workmanlike installation violations? That might be a stretch, I realize, but it seems to be a go to for some inspectors who can't cite a section immediately or if there is no section to cite.

    cheers.
    Fixture listing not likely to have any (direct) conductor size requirements. May require minimum/maximum input voltage and you may need to figure out voltage drop based on your conditions and size accordingly.

    Some AHJ's do inspect to plan specifications - IMO if they are your typical city/county/state inspector, they should only inspect to NEC or whatever code applies. Anything above and beyond code minimum should be up to the designer to approve/disapprove.

    I agree on the 110.12 comment, and think it is one of those code sections that should almost never be cited, as it is too ambiguous. If it is cited it needs further support of what is non-workman like about the installation. I fail to see anything that can definitely be called non workman like about this, it is strictly opinion if you call it non workman like.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Clark County, NV
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by kwired View Post
    ...IMO if they are your typical city/county/state inspector, they should only inspect to NEC or whatever code applies. Anything above and beyond code minimum should be up to the designer to approve/disapprove...
    Agreed. Anything more than required by local laws, should be up to the builder to inspect independently. Permit fees pay for these AHJ inspections, and should be only as expensive as necessary for the government to do its job. I'm also not against an inspector pointing out something he happen to notice, either.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NE Nebraska
    Posts
    33,498
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Agreed. Anything more than required by local laws, should be up to the builder to inspect independently. Permit fees pay for these AHJ inspections, and should be only as expensive as necessary for the government to do its job. I'm also not against an inspector pointing out something he happen to notice, either.
    Me neither. He may see something with your service that is NEC compliant, but nothing wrong with him stating that the POCO typically doesn't allow what you did. He shouldn't issue any correction notices for it though if it is NEC compliant.

    If you used Siemens gear when designer specified Square D - that is between you and the designer and is none of city/state inspector's business as long as what they see complies with code.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •