outdoor street lighting Ground fault protection and OL protection? Question

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Huntxtrm1

Member
Location
Cleburne, Texas USA
Occupation
Master Electrician Supervisor/PLC Programmer
I have a cod question on out door street lighting. We have 2 lighting control panels. They both feed outdoor street lights and out door area pole lights. It is set up like this. 100A breaker to a #10 wire, #10 wire feeds the Lighting control Panel. There are fuses at the pole lights. I am think it is set up at 250% for GF protection(100A Breaker), and overload is handled at each individual pole light by the fuses local to the pole light? I cannot find this in the code? It is and engineered design. I would just like to know the code that says this is correct. My big boss says its not right. I think it is. I trust the EE did his job correctly. Thanks in advance to any replies.
 
Wiring must be different in Texas.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any code approved situation that would allow #10 on a 100 amp breaker for lighting. How does the EE have you terminating the #10 on the 100 amp breaker lugs?
 
Cow said:
Wiring must be different in Texas.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any code approved situation that would allow #10 on a 100 amp breaker for lighting. How does the EE have you terminating the #10 on the 100 amp breaker lugs?
Click to expand...
No pins, just under the lugs. We are not the installers. We are the end users, a vendor installed it.
 
The 250% primary protection is a somewhat decent guess as #10 @ 90 deg. (i.e. 40A) x 250% = 100A... but this would have to be on the primary side of a transformer at 1000V or less... and also the 250% is NOT 250% of the conductor ampacity, it's 250% of the transformer rated current (see Table 450.3(B)).

Is there a transformer between the lighting control panels and the poles?
 
zbang said:
Absent other info, I agree with your boss. Why do you think the EE is right? They do make mistakes (or there may be important info we don't know).
Click to expand...
Not necessarily saying the EE is right. I have corrected a few myself. But, ground fault protection at the source, and OL protection at each individual light sort of makes sense to me. I have just never dealt with this on an outdoor lighting circuit. So, I was wondering if it was acceptable per NEC.
 
Jerramundi said:
The 250% primary protection is a somewhat decent guess as #10 @ 90 deg. (i.e. 40A) x 250% = 100A... but this would have to be on the primary side of a transformer at 1000V or less... and also the 250% is NOT 250% of the conductor ampacity, it's 250% of the transformer rated current (see Table 450.3(B)).

Is there a transformer between the lighting control panels and the poles?
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying. Just wondering if there was a code that allowed this? For inrush? each light does have a transformer. They step the voltage up, instead of down. These are Merc Vapor lights.
 
Huntxtrm1 said:
I understand what you are saying. Just wondering if there was a code that allowed this? For inrush?
Click to expand...
Table 450.3(B) allows for various combinations of (1) primary only and (2) primary and secondary protection... under the required circumstances, which I am by no means saying your situation meets. There's simply not enough information to confirm or deny. But general speaking, 450 addresses this.

There's guys on here a lot smarter than me that have taught me about this and can better answer your questions as to why... I'm just pointing you in the same direction they pointed me.

My general understanding, based on what they told me, is that yes, it allows for inrush current and that transformers can generally handle more than their nameplate rating.
 
Huntxtrm1 said:
But, ground fault protection at the source, and OL protection at each individual light sort of makes sense to me.
Click to expand...

OL at each pole does make some sense, but the leads to the poles still need to be protected as do all of the related components. By my understanding of the code, even if the total lighting load (what is it?) was within the rating of that single #10, it's still not protected at the source, which is needed. Also, the entire system's impedance might be too high to overcurrent-trip a 100a breaker on a fault.

If the 100a breaker was a GFI/GFP breaker, that would be different.

Missing from the discussion are info about the loads and the feed lines to them.
 
zbang said:
OL at each pole does make some sense, but the leads to the poles still need to be protected as do all of the related components. By my understanding of the code, even if the total lighting load (what is it?) was within the rating of that single #10, it's still not protected at the source, which is needed. Also, the entire system's impedance might be too high to overcurrent-trip a 100a breaker on a fault.

If the 100a breaker was a GFI/GFP breaker, that would be different.

Missing from the discussion are info about the loads and the feed lines to them.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, I do not know the loads. But, from what I am hearing, this is not a legit way. Sounds like boss is right. I am merely equating it to my knowledge of motors and short circuit protection, and OL protection. OCPD at 250% for Short Circuit, and OL's at the starter for over current. Or, in a xfmr instance, the 250% on the primary for Short Circuit, and the percentage on the secondary for over current. Not saying it works the same way. Just sort of made sense. Was just wondering if in fact it was allowed.
 
Jerramundi said:
Table 450.3(B) allows for various combinations of (1) primary only and (2) primary and secondary protection... under the required circumstances, which I am by no means saying your situation meets. There's simply not enough information to confirm or deny. But general speaking, 450 addresses this.

There's guys on here a lot smarter than me that have taught me about this and can better answer your questions as to why... I'm just pointing you in the same direction they pointed me.

My general understanding, based on what they told me, is that yes, it allows for inrush current and that transformers can generally handle more than their nameplate rating.
Click to expand...
Guys on here a lot smarter that me too! That's why I ask the questions. Lol Any Electrician that is too proud to use the resources available to him, is not an electrician. In my opinion.
 
Huntxtrm1 said:
...each light does have a transformer. They step the voltage up, instead of down. These are Merc Vapor lights.
Click to expand...

Actually as far as the NEC goes, those are magnetic ballasts not transformers, they would be subject to article 410, such as 410.138, not 450.

Your # 10 conductors must be protected at 30A per 240.4(D)(7). The protective device must be located per 240.21(A) or (B).
 
I suspect that the engineer specified 1/0 AWG conductors and they were installed as 10 AWG conductors... However is there any chance that these are 'outside taps of unlimited length'?

If the #10 is protected at the load end at 30A, and the #10 is outdoors, then this might be compliant.

-Jon
 
romex jockey said:
That's been the 'unspoken fix' for longer than i've been around

~RJ~
Click to expand...
that doesn't make it right.

Many lighting poles are provided with supplementary protection and use the tap rules of 240.21(B).
However the OP said they were protection #10 conductors with a 100A breaker. There is no general provision to provide only ground fault protection for conductors, like these.
 
jim dungar said:
that doesn't make it right.

Many lighting poles are provided with supplementary protection and use the tap rules of 240.21(B).
However the OP said they were protection #10 conductors with a 100A breaker. There is no general provision to provide only ground fault protection for conductors, like these.
Click to expand...
True Jim
but what does one really get for GF say, 1 1/4 mile away ? ~RJ~
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top