NEC Changes For #14 Ampacity

Status
Not open for further replies.

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
I haven't look at the N&M equations, but basic physics says for a unit length of wire of diameter d and _surface_ area A

P = I^2 * R
R varies as 1/d^2
So P varies as I^2/d^2
A varies with d
So P/A varies as I^2/d^3

Temperature rise of the wire should be an increasing function of P/A (power dissipated per unit surface area of the conductor). Certainly that is true for the radiant and conductive components of heat loss, not sure about convection. So at least to a first approximation, a given maximum temperature rise will mean a fixed maximum P/A.

Thus there's nothing linear here: ampacity should vary as diameter to the 3/2, or cross-sectional area to the 3/4. How does that compare to the trend in the NEC ampacity values?

Cheers, Wayne

sure, but the ohms/100ft tables for AWG sizes are already done, i simply took those R values, etc. the P for each of those using the NEC ampacity table is not constant. why is that? P has to dissipate somewhere. if XYZ wire generates 10w then its 10w (10J/sec) of energy that has to go somewhere, and this has temp associated with it. if N-M equations show that temp rise is not directly proportional to P in linear fashion for varying wire sizes then this may explain it, but i just didnt see it in the N-M equations. NEC tables list ampacities that shows an increase of P density (heat generation) as wire size gets bigger, etc.
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
Occupation
Retired
if N-M equations show that temp rise is not directly proportional to P in linear fashion for varying wire sizes then this may explain it
I don't think that the exact relationship between P/A and temp rise matters at all, it certainly won't be linear. As long as temp rise is an increasing function of P/A, then under a particular set of conditions (ambient temperature, insulation temperature rating, etc), the conductors will have a particular allowed temperature rise, which will result in a particular allowed P/A, independent of wire size.

Cheers, Wayne
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
sure, but the ohms/100ft tables for AWG sizes are already done, i simply took those R values, etc. the P for each of those using the NEC ampacity table is not constant. why is that? P has to dissipate somewhere. if XYZ wire generates 10w then its 10w (10J/sec) of energy that has to go somewhere, and this has temp associated with it. if N-M equations show that temp rise is not directly proportional to P in linear fashion for varying wire sizes then this may explain it, but i just didnt see it in the N-M equations. NEC tables list ampacities that shows an increase of P density (heat generation) as wire size gets bigger, etc.

Not sure if I am explaining it correctly but an increase in wire size means more mass but less surface area to dissipate heat.

This is why larger wires get hotter for less voltage drop at the same length.
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
Occupation
Retired
Hmm, my simple model of I varies as d^1.5 must be missing something, it doesn't match the trend in NEC ampacity values. Using a spreadsheet, the trend is close to I varies as d^1.25 (I got exponents between 1.22 and 1.28). Not sure what is going on.

I do notice that insulation thickness tends to increase with increasing wire diameter. The thermal resistance of the insulation will reduce the heat loss, so the allowable P/A will go down with increasing insulation thickness. I don't know how big an effect that is or whether it could explain the above discrepancy.

Cheers, Wayne
 

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
dielectic rated say 600v should remain same thickness no matter wire size, but vendor might add thickness for strength reasons. i dont think NEC accounts for any dielectric variations other than heat R value for types of wire insulation.

as wire size gets bigger the area of heatsink gets bigger. for same P value if the heatsink area gets bigger thus heatsink density goes down (P/area), hence the surface temp per area will also go down.

conduction of heat within the mass (wire) itself will still want to migrate to the surface, the mass itself will have some heat R and is a function of radius (heat at radius=0 has to move across wire radius (radial in angular 2pi) before that heat gets to the surface to transfer out). but this item is generalized when we define DC ohms per circular mil of the copper alloy of the wire, etc. the integration of heat generated across the cross sectional area is basically summarized in I^2R, etc. 60Hz is considered very low freq and for most values the equations in DC suffice.

i am still a tad baffled by the NEC ampacity table. i know everyone keeps saying "the table works so why question it?", well, because thats what i do.
 
Last edited:

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
dielectic rated say 600v should remain same thickness no matter wire size, but vendor might add thickness for strength reasons. i dont think NEC accounts for any dielectric variations other than heat R value for types of wire insulation.

as wire size gets bigger the area of heatsink gets bigger. for same P value if the heatsink area gets bigger thus heatsink density goes down (P/area), hence the surface temp per area will also go down.

conduction of heat within the mass (wire) itself will still want to migrate to the surface, the mass itself will have some heat R and is a function of radius (heat at radius=0 has to move across wire radius (radial in angular 2pi) before that heat gets to the surface to transfer out). but this item is generalized when we define DC ohms per circular mil of the copper alloy of the wire, etc. the integration of heat generated across the cross sectional area is basically summarized in I^2R, etc. 60Hz is considered very low freq and for most values the equations in DC suffice.

i am still a tad baffled by the NEC ampacity table. i know everyone keeps saying "the table works so why question it?", well, because thats what i do.




Keep questioning it. :thumbsup::)

Assuming insualtion plays a minimal role, the surface area increases less relative to the mass of conductor. Mass means more current can flow by itself, however surface area not proportionally increasing to mass leads to less heat dissipation and thus lowered ampacity.

Try this, check your equations against voltage drop. Play around and see what happens:

http://www.electrician2.com/calculators/vd_calculatoradv.htm


http://cablesizer.com/
 

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
Keep questioning it. :thumbsup::)

Assuming insualtion plays a minimal role, the surface area increases less relative to the mass of conductor. Mass means more current can flow by itself, however surface area not proportionally increasing to mass leads to less heat dissipation and thus lowered ampacity.

Try this, check your equations against voltage drop. Play around and see what happens:

http://www.electrician2.com/calculators/vd_calculatoradv.htm


http://cablesizer.com/

the mass per length is already accounted for in ohms per ft tables, etc. mass/length alone is not good enough to describe the heat density in the heatsink, the geometry is also needed. for this discussion we are limiting it conductors that have round x-section, etc.

your statement suggests that the ampacities are less than what wire size (mass) would suggest, but look at the NEC table #'s, the heatsink density (joules/sec/sq.in) goes up with larger wire sizes, so in essence a bigger wire is allowed to dissipate more heat (joules/sq.in/ft) than a smaller wire. this is where it is baffles me, etc. even with thicker insulation on bigger wire, the heat still needs to transfer out of that wire to surrounding environment.
 

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
the mass per length is already accounted for in ohms per ft tables, etc. mass/length alone is not good enough to describe the heat density in the heatsink, the geometry is also needed. for this discussion we are limiting it conductors that have round x-section, etc.

your statement suggests that the ampacities are less than what wire size (mass) would suggest, but look at the NEC table #'s, the heatsink density (joules/sec/sq.in) goes up with larger wire sizes, so in essence a bigger wire is allowed to dissipate more heat (joules/sq.in/ft) than a smaller wire. this is where it is baffles me, etc. even with thicker insulation on bigger wire, the heat still needs to transfer out of that wire to surrounding environment.

I think it might have to do with smaller wires being abused more. BTW, useing your equations, how does this compare?
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
Occupation
Retired
your statement suggests that the ampacities are less than what wire size (mass) would suggest, but look at the NEC table #'s, the heatsink density (joules/sec/sq.in) goes up with larger wire sizes
My analysis says it goes down, in that P/A varies as I^2/d^3, and the observed trend in NEC ampacities is approximately I varies as d^1.25. Together that means with the NEC ampacities P/A is varying as d^-0.5, i.e. it goes down with wire diameter. Did I make a mistake in my first post today? (I'm using A for surface area, not cross-sectional area, probably should have used S for that from the beginning.)

Maybe this has something to do with convection? If you double the surface area, perhaps you don't actually double the convective heat rejection capability, so P/A isn't the right term to look at?

Cheers, Wayne
 

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
My analysis says it goes down, in that P/A varies as I^2/d^3, and the observed trend in NEC ampacities is approximately I varies as d^1.25. Together that means with the NEC ampacities P/A is varying as d^-0.5, i.e. it goes down with wire diameter. Did I make a mistake in my first post today? (I'm using A for surface area, not cross-sectional area, probably should have used S for that from the beginning.)

Maybe this has something to do with convection? If you double the surface area, perhaps you don't actually double the convective heat rejection capability, so P/A isn't the right term to look at?

Cheers, Wayne

take 100ft of each wires size, then P = ampacity(60C column) * ohms(100ft). now, calculate the surface area sq.in/ft for each wire size (i used AWG wire dia, no insulation). heatsink density = P/sq.in(ft) seems to go up with wire size using the NEC ampacity table, and not linear. the heat density is directly proportional to temp.
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
Occupation
Retired
take 100ft of each wires size, then P = ampacity(60C column) * ohms(100ft).
That should be P = (ampacity)^2 * R, yes?

now, calculate the surface area sq.in/ft for each wire size (i used AWG wire dia, no insulation).
Surface area will just have units of square inches, if you do something like surface area/foot, that's just the perimeter of the circular cross-section of the wire.

heatsink density = P/sq.in(ft) seems to go up with wire size using the NEC ampacity table, and not linear.
Not sure what you mean by heatsink density, I was looking at P/A (power over surface area), which is required rate of heat loss per unit area per unit time. Using the NEC ampacities, I find that P/A goes down with increasing diameter.

the heat density is directly proportional to temp.
I'm pretty sure that's not going to be true, the temperature will rise until the heat loss due to radiation, conduction, and convection matches the power dissipation, achieving equilibrium. For conduction, the heat loss is proportional to the temperature difference. However, for radiant heat loss, the radiant flux of a black body is proportional to the 4th power of the absolute temperature. I don't know how convection works.

Even though the rate of heat loss may not be proportional to temperature rise, the rate of heat loss will increase with temperature, so for given conditions, a particular maximum temperature rise will have an associated maximum allowable power dissipation and vice versa.

Cheers, Wayne
 

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
yes, I^2, was typing too fast.
the heatsink density is same as your P/A and directly proportional, etc.
the reference to P/A/ft is more like a reference "P/A (ft)" because when i got to power density for the heatsink of insulation i did it for 1ft of wire, kinda like how N-M equations are. but, the initial P/ft calc is unified with wire length of 100ft (ampacity^2* Rohms(100ft)/100), etc. N-M doc also talks about temp of wire for areas where ambient air is not the same for the full wire length.

i am running the P/A #'s for 14/12/10 awg sizes and will list the % diffs between them as the wire size goes up.


Even though the rate of heat loss may not be proportional to temperature rise, the rate of heat loss will increase with temperature, so for given conditions, a particular maximum temperature rise will have an associated maximum allowable power dissipation and vice versa.

Cheers, Wayne
i suspect you are getting into heat flows (and "flux" densities). you can wrap all that up into net heat loss per unit time which basically defines the temp per unit area.

Teertstra, P., Yovanovich, M.M., and Culham, J.R., “Analytical Forced Convection Modeling of Plate Fin Heat Sinks,” Proceedings of 15th IEEE Semi-Therm Symposium, pp. 34-41, 1999.

this reference shows that thermal resistance is parabolic as sink area increases in linear fashion. but its not significant for common AWG wire sizes.
 
Last edited:

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
notice the % increase in P/A from #14 to #12, and then from #12 to #10. the % increase in area is almost linear, but power jumps quite a bit in #10 wire. even with some of the other deep-dive factors accounted for (as N-M equations do) why does NEC allow this increase in power density as wire size goes up? some are suggesting rounding of the #'s that accounts for this ?? or, this is a case where the bigger wire P/A is still at acceptable levels, but because #12 and #14 is used more the ampacities were knocked down some, but this logic doesnt make sense to me.

updating table, 1sec
 
Last edited:

jim dungar

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Wisconsin
Occupation
PE (Retired) - Power Systems
...why does NEC allow this increase in power density as wire size goes up?

Most likely the NEC did not perform any of these analysis for their Small Conductors.
Their 'restrictions' are likely not much more than feel good values that address cable construction, conductor insulation and installation considerations over the past 100 years of electrical installations. As such the report values bear no relationship to real world physics.

Your deep dive analysis may be more germane to equipment standards, like those that allow #18AWG in fixtures.
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
Occupation
Retired
updating table, 1sec
When I looked at the numbers, the heat flux P/A is decreasing with wire diameter, except for #10 and #3. #10 is likely rounding errors since 15, 20 and 30 are such small numbers. Not sure what is going on with #3.

Anyway, if you just look at #14, #12, and #10, you will be misled as to the trend, I looked at #14 through 1000 kcmil.

Cheers, Wayne
 

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
When I looked at the numbers, the heat flux P/A is decreasing with wire diameter, except for #10 and #3. #10 is likely rounding errors since 15, 20 and 30 are such small numbers. Not sure what is going on with #3.

Anyway, if you just look at #14, #12, and #10, you will be misled as to the trend, I looked at #14 through 1000 kcmil.

Cheers, Wayne

indeed, here's the #'s in excel. i have to do multiple posts to show the tables i ran. this 1st one is NEC #'s, 2nd is fixed watts/ft, and the 3rd one is fixed P/A, the these two latter tables are base on 60C 20A ampacity for #14. if NEC is concerned about wire temp then fixed P/A makes sense to me, if NEC is concerned about total W/ft then fixed W/ft makes sense to me, the current NEC #'s dont make 100% sense to me.

awg
dia(in)circumference(in)area(in^2) per ft% increase of area60C ampacity ARohms(1000ft)Rohms/ftP (W/ft)P/A (ft) watts/sq.in.% increase in P/A
140.06410.4025484.8305760152.5250.0025250.5681250.1176101980
120.08080.5074246.08908826.05304212201.5880.0015880.63520.104317757-11.30211635
100.10190.6399327.67918426.11386139300.99890.00099890.899010.11707103312.22541238
80.12850.806989.6837626.10402355400.62820.00062821.005120.103794394-11.34066929
60.1621.0173612.2083226.07003891550.39510.00039511.19517750.097898605-5.68025736
40.20431.28300415.39604826.11111111700.24850.00024851.217650.079088478-19.21388706
20.25761.61772819.41273626.08908468950.15630.00015631.41060750.072664023-8.123123246
10.28931.81680421.80164812.305900621100.12390.00012391.499190.068764985-5.365844014
00.32492.04037224.48446412.305565161250.09830.00009831.53593750.062731106-8.774639249
 
Last edited:

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
fixed watts/ft

awg
dia(in)circumference(in)area(in^2) per ft% increase of area60C ampacity ARohms(1000ft)Rohms/ftP (W/ft)P/A (ft) watts/sq.in.% increase in P/A

14
0.06410.4025484.830576020.002.5250.0025251.010.2090847970
120.08080.5074246.08908826.0530421225.221.5880.0015881.010.165870488-20.66831683
100.10190.6399327.67918426.1138613931.800.99890.00099891.010.131524391-20.70657507
80.12850.806989.6837626.1040235540.100.62820.00062821.010.10429833-20.70038911
60.1621.0173612.2083226.0700389150.560.39510.00039511.010.082730466-20.67901235
40.20431.28300415.39604826.1111111163.750.24850.00024851.010.06560125-20.70484581
20.25761.61772819.41273626.0890846880.390.15630.00015631.010.0520277-20.69099379
10.28931.81680421.80164812.3059006290.290.12390.00012391.010.046326773-10.95748358
00.32492.04037224.48446412.30556516101.360.09830.00009831.010.041250648-10.95721761
 

FionaZuppa

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Occupation
Part Time Electrician (semi retired, old) - EE retired.
forget post #94.

fixed P/A

awg
dia(in)circumference(in)area(in^2) per ft% increase of area60C ampacity ARohms(1000ft)Rohms/ftP (W/ft)P/A (ft) watts/sq.in.% increase in P/A

14
0.06410.4025484.830576020.002.5250.0025251.010.209080
120.08080.5074246.08908826.0530421228.311.5880.0015881.270.209080
100.10190.6399327.67918426.1138613940.090.99890.00099891.610.209080
80.12850.806989.6837626.1040235556.770.62820.00062822.020.209080
60.1621.0173612.2083226.0700389180.380.39510.00039512.550.209080
40.20431.28300415.39604826.11111111113.810.24850.00024853.220.209080
20.25761.61772819.41273626.08908468161.150.15630.00015634.060.209080
10.28931.81680421.80164812.30590062191.810.12390.00012394.560.209080
00.32492.04037224.48446412.30556516228.200.09830.00009835.120.209080
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top