Egc sizing

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Djelite

Senior Member
Location
Ny
Occupation
Electrician
In the code book article 250.122(table) is used to size egc based on the ocpd rating. If you increase the ungrounded conductors size from its minimum required the egc must be resized as well. If you change the ocpd rating to a higher one you dont need to increases ocpd rating, why?
 
One simple reason: someone could see the larger wires and decide to put in a larger breaker.

Another reason is to make sure the fault current is high enough to operate the OCPD quickly.
 
LarryFine said:
One simple reason: someone could see the larger wires and decide to put in a larger breaker.
Click to expand...
And then it would be a compliant installation.
LarryFine said:
Another reason is to make sure the fault current is high enough to operate the OCPD quickly.
Click to expand...
How can that be? I put 8 AWG on a 15A breaker with a 10 AWG egc or I put 8 AWG on a 50A breaker with the same 10 AWG egc. The former is a violation and the latter is compliant.

Now I barely made it past ninth grade algebra and I never took a science class in my life
 
LarryFine said:
One simple reason: someone could see the larger wires and decide to put in a larger breaker.

Another reason is to make sure the fault current is high enough to operate the OCPD
Click to expand...
LarryFine said:
One simple reason: someone could see the larger wires and decide to put in a larger breaker.

Another reason is to make sure the fault current is high enough to operate the OCPD quickly.
Click to expand...
But you are putting a larger ocpd on larger ungrounded conductors to avoid increasing the ocpd( due to voltage drop) even thou all egc are sized based on the rating of its ocpd
 
This actually comes up quite a bit. I have used 10 AWG on 20AMP homeruns where it was longer than 70ft. A recent inspector asked me to put some sort of identifier on the wire and breaker panel that the circuit should not exceed 20AMPS.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
There is no valid technical substantiation for 250.122(B).
Click to expand...
...except for when the ungrounded conductors were increased for voltage drop due to long run.

Outside of that, agreed. The way it's worded can make for some very strange results, such as ActionDave's post #3.
 
bwat said:
...except for when the ungrounded conductors were increased for voltage drop due to long run.

Outside of that, agreed. The way it's worded can make for some very strange results, such as ActionDave's post #3.
Click to expand...
Show me the math that supports that.

There have been many posts over the years that show there is no real technical substantiation for that rule, especially when doing what Dave said is compliant. If the table sized EGC is adequate to clear the circuit with a larger OCDP, then it is adequate to clear the circuit with the smaller OCPD and larger conductors.
 
S dsws are
don_resqcapt19 said:
Show me the math that supports that.

There have been many posts over the years that show there is no real technical substantiation for that rule, especially when doing what Dave said is compliant. If the table sized EGC is adequate to clear the circuit with a larger OCDP, then it is adequate to clear the circuit with the smaller OCPD and larger conductors.
Click to expand...
exactly my point
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If the table sized EGC is adequate to clear the circuit with a larger OCDP, then it is adequate to clear the circuit with the smaller OCPD and larger conductors.
Click to expand...
I agree and the concept of increasing the EGC is even more ridiculous when the raceway is metallic and qualifies as an EGC.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If the table sized EGC is adequate to clear the circuit with a larger OCDP, then it is adequate to clear the circuit with the smaller OCPD and larger conductors.
Click to expand...
Agreed. No argument there whatsoever. We're really talking about two different scenarios when you say it that way. The word "If" there is very important.

This is technically not a true statement: "If the EGC is adequately sized per the table and section 250.122, then the circuit is adequate to clear a fault". Put 10 AWG ungrounded and EGC on a very long 30A CB circuit and short them at the end. Yes, it was sized to code, but it won't clear.
 
bwat said:
Agreed. No argument there whatsoever. We're really talking about two different scenarios when you say it that way. The word "If" there is very important.

This is technically not a true statement: "If the EGC is adequately sized per the table and section 250.122, then the circuit is adequate to clear a fault". Put 10 AWG ungrounded and EGC on a very long 30A CB circuit and short them at the end. Yes, it was sized to code, but it won't clear.
Click to expand...
Won't clear is maybe wrong. Yes there is a point where you will limit current enough that it won't, but until you reach that length, you simply increase the time it takes to trip, primarily because you reduced the amount of fault current with the added resistance of the conductors.

Short length from source that maybe would trip nearly instantaneously might take many seconds to trip if it were a 1000 foot run, but eventually will trip as long as actual current is over the device rating, and something else doesn't fail first.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If the table sized EGC is adequate to clear the circuit with a larger OCDP, then it is adequate to clear the circuit with the smaller OCPD and larger conductors.
Click to expand...
While the above is true, as pointed out in some installs the table sized EGC may not be adequate to clear the fault, whatever the OCPD size.

So a rule that uses the condition "if the ungrounded conductors are upsized due to VD" as a proxy for "situations where the EGC is really long and the table size may not be big enough, whatever size the OCPD is" has a technical substantiation.

However, if upsizing for VD is not a requirement, then relying on that proxy fails to satisfy the "practical safeguarding" intention of the NEC, since with the larger OCPD the EGC would be allowed to be downsized.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top