User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: "Bonding" in 2500kva Padmount Transf.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    318
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: "Bonding" in 2500kva Padmount Transf.

    Originally posted by don_resqcapt19:
    Tom,
    Even if we don't call the transformer a structure, it is still an SDS and 250.30 only permits bonding of the grounded conductor at one location if a possible parallel path exists. The code has a number of problems when dealing with large "campus" type distribution systems. For all practical purposes these are the same as services, but because they are on the load side of the service point, the rules treat them differently than services. The code needs to have an Article that deals with this type of distribution system.
    Don
    What I want to avoid calling it is a building. I have no problem treating it as an SDS although I think that it would be a lot simpler if we treated it as a service. As you already pointed out the two installations only differ by there legal owners rather than how they behave electrically.
    --
    Tom Horne
    Tom Horne

    "This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use." Thomas Alva Edison

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    24,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: "Bonding" in 2500kva Padmount Transf.

    Tom,
    It is my opinion that a transformer is clearly a structure per Article 100. However it doesn't make any difference as the bonding rules for 2 or more structures from a common service and for a SDS are almost identical.
    Structure. That which is built or constructed.
    Don
    Don, Illinois
    (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    27
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: "Bonding" in 2500kva Padmount Transf.

    Don,

    His original post stated "service entrance conductors ". That leads me to believe this is a service and not a feeder. He didn't mention in his post about the transformer being customer owned

    I would agree with you if this is a feeder that the code has different rules than services. I also hope you would agree that is can be difficult sometimes to properly assess the actual code requirements over the Internet.

    John Cosmo
    State Electrical Inspector

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    24,158
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Re: "Bonding" in 2500kva Padmount Transf.

    John,
    I went back and re-read the original post and he did say service entrance conductors. I guess, I'm just basing my comments on how it works around here. If the transformer is utility owned, the contractor does not make any terminations at the transformer. The original post and my experiences made me assume that this was a customer owned transformer. Sorry for the confusion.
    Don
    Don, Illinois
    (All code citations are 2017 unless otherwise noted)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •