Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

without conduit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by paulengr View Post
    There is a part of the 2017 Code for service conductors mounted over roofing dealing with spacing off the roof including covering if any since PV is essentially a service.
    I couldn't disagree more. PV is not a service.

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by hhsting View Post
      Nec 2014 Article 690.43(F) says EGC has to be within same cable or raceway. So does this mean their needs to be separate EGC for each string from J box? I have three strings and each PV wire would have EGC with it but there are no conduits provided?

      Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
      no one answered above got lost

      Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

      Comment


        #18
        Individual circuits do not need their own EGCs. It's not true in general and not true for PV.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by hhsting View Post
          Right but one your on roof these cables would be readily accessible. So raceway would be needed regardless?

          Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk
          No. The rules do not suddenly change once you climb on the roof.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by jaggedben View Post
            Individual circuits do not need their own EGCs. It's not true in general and not true for PV.
            What does Nec 2014 Article 690.43(F) mean then?

            Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by hhsting View Post
              What does Nec 2014 Article 690.43(F) mean then?
              That has nothing to do with the question you asked. See 250.122(C).

              Comment


                #22
                You seem to think that the designer has to spell out every tiny detail of the installation. I think you have to stop somewhere. It's a code requirement that EMT be supported every 10ft. Does this mean the designer has to draw the location of every one hole strap on the plans? I don't think so. There are few different code compliant ways to run circuits between arrays. Can't you just leave it up to the field inspector to ensure that the installers use one? Maybe put a general comment on the plans "Conductors between arrays to be protected and supported in an approved manner."

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by jaggedben View Post
                  You seem to think that the designer has to spell out every tiny detail of the installation. I think you have to stop somewhere. It's a code requirement that EMT be supported every 10ft. Does this mean the designer has to draw the location of every one hole strap on the plans? I don't think so. There are few different code compliant ways to run circuits between arrays. Can't you just leave it up to the field inspector to ensure that the installers use one? Maybe put a general comment on the plans "Conductors between arrays to be protected and supported in an approved manner."
                  I am not assuming I actually asked what they are going to do since they didnt spell it out. Yes plan is a legal document so at least number of EGC, size etc needs to be spelled out. Also what does in approved manner mean. Lots of engineer do not know code that well, or have common sense end up doing things wrong and all this has to be cleared up before approval.

                  Ofcourse by your account why have engineering drawings as well if one were to put general notes.
                  Last edited by hhsting; 07-10-19, 06:43 AM.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by jaggedben View Post
                    That has nothing to do with the question you asked. See 250.122(C).
                    I see that in one raceway with muliple circuits you can have one EGC in raceway.

                    My another question was at the junction box circuits separate one goes to steing 1, second string 2, third string 3. Separated circuit Article 690.43(F) says to have for each circuit EGC not one whole EGC no?

                    Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by hhsting View Post
                      I see that in one raceway with muliple circuits you can have one EGC in raceway.

                      My another question was at the junction box circuits separate one goes to steing 1, second string 2, third string 3. Separated circuit Article 690.43(F) says to have for each circuit EGC not one whole EGC no?
                      No. It just doesn't say that. If they choose to put two strings in one conduit for some stretch they only need one EGC.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by jaggedben View Post
                        No. It just doesn't say that. If they choose to put two strings in one conduit for some stretch they only need one EGC.
                        Yea but their is no conduit provided.

                        Sent from my SM-G935U using Tapatalk

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by hhsting View Post
                          Yea but their is no conduit provided.
                          They will be doing something, and the method will tell you something about EGCs. I don't know why you need to have it specified before install and field inspection (I still don't understand your role in this) but if that's what your role requires then ask them to specify the method.

                          You asked the forum 'is conduit required' and we told you 'there's more than one code compliant way to do it'. Same goes for EGCs. "It depends."

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X