1/C with 3/C in parallel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
texie said:
While this proposed installation may meet the letter of the code, I don't think it meets the spirit of the code. Then there are the physics of this. I don't see how a triple factory twisted assembly of conductors would behave the same electrically as individual conductors in the other raceway. And are they of the same type of insulation? There is also the issue of the EGCs now being to small and/or different sizes for the new increased amperage (assuming wire type EGCs are used). And, as a practical matter, how do you add second raceway of the same approx. length when it was not planned on when the first raceway was installed?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as the spirit of the code. There is the letter of the code and there is the intent of the code. Also the code is not a design guide. The issue of EGC has already been mentioned several times in this thread.
Unless you’re able to post the physics you mentioned, this installation should be considered safe, adequately engineered and meets both the letter of the code and its intent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The requirement in code is that parallel conductors have the same electrical characteristics.

This means the same conductor material, of the same size, with the same insulation, in the same electrical environment, of the same length.

Electrical environment includes the surrounding conductors and type of conduit.

I would argue that it is impossible to meet the letter of the code, because there is no mention made of things such as measurement or conductor production tolerances. So in a real way, all parallel installations violate the letter of code yet most are safe and meet the spirit of the code.

If the '3C' being considered is constructed of the same conductive material, of the same nominal size, with the same insulation type, in the same type of conduit with the same number and phases of conductor, it would still be different from the existing conductor:

The different conductor arrangement will give different impedance, and the insulation would have aged differently.

In real world installation people usually don't control the conductor arrangement, they just pull conductors into the pipes. And while most parallel installations are done all at once, I doubt insulation aging is ever considered or particularly significant.

I think it is likely that the installation being considered would be safe and meet the spirit of the code (with the exception of the EGC size mentioned by others), but IMHO it doesn't meet the letter of the code.

Jon
 
roger said:
How are you going to address this?
Click to expand...
(3) Separate Cables or Raceways. Where run in separate
cables or raceways, the cables or raceways with conductors
shall have the same number of conductors and shall have the
same electrical characteristics. Conductors of one phase, polarity,
neutral, grounded circuit conductor, or equipment
grounding conductor shall not be required to have the same
physical characteristics as those of another phase, polarity,
neutral, grounded circuit conductor, or equipment grounding
conductor.

Same electrical characteristics comes into play for OP as well. The idea is you want equal overall impedance on each segment of a parallel set. If not equal more current will take the lesser impedance path. Too much difference may overload one path while the other path carries somewhat minimal current.
 
winnie said:
The requirement in code is that parallel conductors have the same electrical characteristics.

This means the same conductor material, of the same size, with the same insulation, in the same electrical environment, of the same length.

Electrical environment includes the surrounding conductors and type of conduit.

I would argue that it is impossible to meet the letter of the code, because there is no mention made of things such as measurement or conductor production tolerances. So in a real way, all parallel installations violate the letter of code yet most are safe and meet the spirit of the code.

If the '3C' being considered is constructed of the same conductive material, of the same nominal size, with the same insulation type, in the same type of conduit with the same number and phases of conductor, it would still be different from the existing conductor:

The different conductor arrangement will give different impedance, and the insulation would have aged differently.

In real world installation people usually don't control the conductor arrangement, they just pull conductors into the pipes. And while most parallel installations are done all at once, I doubt insulation aging is ever considered or particularly significant.

I think it is likely that the installation being considered would be safe and meet the spirit of the code (with the exception of the EGC size mentioned by others), but IMHO it doesn't meet the letter of the code.

Jon
Click to expand...

I don’t think the intent is to cover every conceivable scenario. At some point, reason and sound engineering has to prevail. Purists will insist the letter of the code must always be met in every installation. I disagree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
kwired said:
(3) Separate Cables or Raceways. Where run in separate
cables or raceways, the cables or raceways with conductors
shall have the same number of conductors and shall have the
same electrical characteristics. Conductors of one phase, polarity,
neutral, grounded circuit conductor, or equipment
grounding conductor shall not be required to have the same
physical characteristics as those of another phase, polarity,
neutral, grounded circuit conductor, or equipment grounding
conductor.

Same electrical characteristics comes into play for OP as well. The idea is you want equal overall impedance on each segment of a parallel set. If not equal more current will take the lesser impedance path. Too much difference may overload one path while the other path carries somewhat minimal current.
Click to expand...

I would argue the same characteristics have been met. The slight difference in impedance would not play a significant role in a 100’ feeder


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In post 21 you said the installation meets the letter of the code, and challenged people to post refuting physics.

Now you say that it meets the intent of the code even though purists would say it doesn't.

IMHO the burden of proof is on you to show that the impedance difference will be negligible.

Have you calculated the impedance of 3 conductors side by side in a conduit vs 3 conductors tightly bundled in a conduit? It is only 100 feet, so the absolute value will be low, but what matters is the percentage difference, and since the difference will be in magnetic inductance, the % difference may be swamped by the resistance of the conductors.

My hunch agrees with yours, that the difference will be negligible. But it is your installation and your problem if the hunch is wrong.

Jon
 
kwired said:
(3) Separate Cables or Raceways. Where run in separate
cables or raceways, the cables or raceways with conductors
shall have the same number of conductors and shall have the
same electrical characteristics. Conductors of one phase, polarity,
neutral, grounded circuit conductor, or equipment
grounding conductor shall not be required to have the same
physical characteristics as those of another phase, polarity,
neutral, grounded circuit conductor, or equipment grounding
conductor.

Same electrical characteristics comes into play for OP as well. The idea is you want equal overall impedance on each segment of a parallel set. If not equal more current will take the lesser impedance path. Too much difference may overload one path while the other path carries somewhat minimal current.
Click to expand...
Is that the actual code wording? Which edition? I don't see the "shall have the same electrical characteristics" in the 2017
 
winnie said:
In post 21 you said the installation meets the letter of the code, and challenged people to post refuting physics.

Now you say that it meets the intent of the code even though purists would say it doesn't.

IMHO the burden of proof is on you to show that the impedance difference will be negligible.

Have you calculated the impedance of 3 conductors side by side in a conduit vs 3 conductors tightly bundled in a conduit? It is only 100 feet, so the absolute value will be low, but what matters is the percentage difference, and since the difference will be in magnetic inductance, the % difference may be swamped by the resistance of the conductors.

My hunch agrees with yours, that the difference will be negligible. But it is your installation and your problem if the hunch is wrong.

Jon
Click to expand...

Rather than continue with conceptual and abstract arguments…
Let me look at some calculations…IF they favor my argument I will post them . Lol.
If not I will simply modify the installation and search for single conductors. As noted they’re currently out of stock so we will definitely take a hit on lead times which of course will affect schedule. Not good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
winnie said:
in the same electrical environment
Click to expand...
That phrase does not appear in 310.10(G).

As to 310.10(G)(3), it's not clear to me how to apply the part about "the cables or raceways . . . shall have the same electrical characteristics." How do you compare the electrical characteristics of a raceway with the electrical characteristics of a cable? Or if you are relying on the cable being in a raceway as well, how do you get to ignore the electrical characteristics of the cable itself?

As to the basic issue of 3/C being available and 1/C not, if the insulation type is the same, why not just remove the jacket of the 3/C cable and run the individual conductors within the conduit?

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
That phrase does not appear in 310.10(G).

As to 310.10(G)(3), it's not clear to me how to apply the part about "the cables or raceways . . . shall have the same electrical characteristics." How do you compare the electrical characteristics of a raceway with the electrical characteristics of a cable? Or if you are relying on the cable being in a raceway as well, how do you get to ignore the electrical characteristics of the cable itself?

As to the basic issue of 3/C being available and 1/C not, if the insulation type is the same, why not just remove the jacket of the 3/C cable and run the individual conductors within the conduit?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

What kind of labor-man hours would it take to strip say, 120’ of 3/C w/ground?
I’ve never seen this done before

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
electrofelon said:
Is that the actual code wording? Which edition? I don't see the "shall have the same electrical characteristics" in the 2017
Click to expand...
My quote was from the 11 because it's what I had convenient at the time.
 
roger said:
So it's a cable assembly, why not tell everyone what it is?
Click to expand...
Dale001289 said:
Okonite, 1/0, 3/Cw/ground Okoseal ? Copper
90degree C unshielded 2kV rated
I don’t recall if it’s TC rated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Ok it must be a RHH/RHW-2 insulation if it is 2kv rated. Just a quick look at the okonite catalog , must be either their "okoclear" or "okolon" product.

Here is an interesting question: the "same insulation type" requirement, would one set being a 600v RHH/RHW-2 and the other being a 2kv RHH/RHW-2 be acceptable? What type and voltage rating of conductors are in the existing run?
 
electrofelon said:
Ok it must be a RHH/RHW-2 insulation if it is 2kv rated. Just a quick look at the okonite catalog , must be either their "okoclear" or "okolon" product.

Here is an interesting question: the "same insulation type" requirement, would one set being a 600v RHH/RHW-2 and the other being a 2kv RHH/RHW-2 be acceptable? What type and voltage rating of conductors are in the existing run?
Click to expand...
Those cables I mentioned appear to only be single conductor. Only multi conductor I can find are XHHW and 1kv 🤔
 
Dale001289 said:
The slight difference in impedance would not play a significant role in a 100’ feeder
Click to expand...
That's the crux of the conversation, and it depends on how close to max paralleled ampacity the actual load is at any given moment. The greater the load, the more critical any impedance difference will be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top