Language: 240.3

[George Stolz]

What does 240.3 mean?

240.3 Other Articles. Equipment shall be protected against overcurrent in accordance with the article in this Code that covers the type of equipment specified in Table 240.3.

Does that mean that Article 240 has no bearing on the equipment listed?

 

[augie47]

To me, it simply directs you to a Table of other Articles which may supplement the "general" rules in Art 240. For instance, we know Art 430
allows short-circuit/ground fault protect in excess of the "normal" conductor ampacity, but the OCP device would still have to meet other rules of 240 such as location, etc.

 

[Nium]

The articles specified in Table 240.3 amend or are in addition to the requirements for Article 240. For instance the first thing listed in Table 240.3 Air Conditioning and refrigerating equipment Article 440. Thumbing through Article 440 you come across...

Part III 440.21 General

The provisions of Part III specify devices to protect the branch-circuit conductors, control apparatus, and motors in circuits supplying hermetic refrigerant motor-compressors against overcurrent due to short circuits and ground faults. They are in addition to or amendatory to the provisions of Article 240.

I didn't bother to go through the whole list of Table 240.3 but I'd guess each Article listed has similar amendments to Article 240 contained in them.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The rules in Article 240, as modified by other articles, only cover the required overcurrent protection of the conductors. Protection of the equipment is not covered by this article, but in many cases the required protective device for the conductors also provides protection for the equipment.

 

[George Stolz]

Thanks for the replies.

The reason this came up for me is that I was looking at the draft for the 2011, and noticed that 820.3 has a series of subsections that direct the user to more appropriate articles if they are not looking for rules for CATV and Radio Distribution Systems.

It seems paradoxical to me to write a rule in an article that does not apply to your installation, that says where to look to find the rules that do apply.

For example, if I accidentally stumble into 820.3(H) looking for communication circuit rules, it sends me to Article 800. That's great, but it seems to indicate that I would need to keep looking through 820 to see if there are any rules that apply to my 800 installation.

The tables in the beginnings of the Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 Articles, directing people to similar Articles and sections, don't take up much space and look better - but I got tripped up on the language of 240.3, which I picked at random and quit looking.

I really like the format of 230.1 and Figure 230.1, and think that the Chapter 8 articles would benefit from a similar setup - and I also believe it is more appropriate for the Scope Section to dictate that "X, Y and Z do not fall under the scope of this Article."

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Thanks for the replies.

The reason this came up for me is that I was looking at the draft for the 2011, and noticed that 820.3 has a series of subsections that direct the user to more appropriate articles if they are not looking for rules for CATV and Radio Distribution Systems.

It seems paradoxical to me to write a rule in an article that does not apply to your installation, that says where to look to find the rules that do apply.

For example, if I accidentally stumble into 820.3(H) looking for communication circuit rules, it sends me to Article 800. That's great, but it seems to indicate that I would need to keep looking through 820 to see if there are any rules that apply to my 800 installation.

The tables in the beginnings of the Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 Articles, directing people to similar Articles and sections, don't take up much space and look better - but I got tripped up on the language of 240.3, which I picked at random and quit looking.

I really like the format of 230.1 and Figure 230.1, and think that the Chapter 8 articles would benefit from a similar setup - and I also believe it is more appropriate for the Scope Section to dictate that "X, Y and Z do not fall under the scope of this Article."

It looks like you have a lot of proposals to write for the 2014 code