2017 NEC second draft

Status
Not open for further replies.
Carultch said:
I'm interested in seeing the language they use for saying that, but don't have a login. Is it still the language they had in 2014?
Click to expand...
Not the same wording as 2014.
(B) Increased in Size. If ungrounded conductors are increased in size to account for voltage drop, wire-type equipment grounding conductors shall be increased in size. The increase in size shall be at least in the same proportion as the increase in the size of the ungrounded conductors using their circular mil area.
Click to expand...
 
Smart $ said:
Not the same wording as 2014.
Click to expand...

Well, it is quite an improvement in my opinion, as it now gets straight to the point of the intent of the rule.

So now you no longer have to upsize EGC, if you've upsized the main conductors because you had left-over wire that is larger than necessary, kicking around from a previous job. Or if you've prepared for 60C terminations in your design worst-case-scenario, and end up with 75C terminations as is the industry norm. Or if you have equipment that specifically calls for larger than necessary wire.
 
Carultch said:
Well, it is quite an improvement in my opinion, as it now gets straight to the point of the intent of the rule.

So now you no longer have to upsize EGC, if you've upsized the main conductors because you had left-over wire that is larger than necessary, kicking around from a previous job. Or if you've prepared for 60C terminations in your design worst-case-scenario, and end up with 75C terminations as is the industry norm. Or if you have equipment that specifically calls for larger than necessary wire.
Click to expand...
That's correct. No more "or if's". Only for voltage drop. It's back to the intent of the original version... with the exception that the original version only required upsizing where a wire-type EGC was required. That is, you originally didn't have to upsize if you used a metallic raceway wiring method.
 
Smart $ said:
That is, you originally didn't have to upsize if you used a metallic raceway wiring method.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that under the older wording, if you had both a wire-type EGC and a metallic raceway EGC, you didn't need to upsize the wire-type EGC?

Cheers, Wayne
 
ActionDave said:
I wanted the NEC to go all in. That's the best way to reveal these things for the fraud they are.
Click to expand...

I agree, but just the expansion to kitchens and the issues I've observed with AFCI's tripping with certain appliances is enough, IMO. Still, you're right that it would have really upped that ante if AFCI's started tripping with furnaces and other equipment.
 
Smart $ said:
That's correct. No more "or if's". Only for voltage drop. It's back to the intent of the original version... with the exception that the original version only required upsizing where a wire-type EGC was required. That is, you originally didn't have to upsize if you used a metallic raceway wiring method.
Click to expand...


So if I have 10 awg conductor for de-rating purposes and install a 20 amp overcurrent protective device then I can use a #12 equipment grounding conductor?
 
Dennis Alwon said:
So if I have 10 awg conductor for de-rating purposes and install a 20 amp overcurrent protective device then I can use a #12 equipment grounding conductor?
Click to expand...

Smart $ said:
Yes, but IIRC we're talking like back in the '70's.
Click to expand...

wwhitney said:
Are you saying that under the older wording, if you had both a wire-type EGC and a metallic raceway EGC, you didn't need to upsize the wire-type EGC?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

Smart $ said:
That's correct. No more "or if's". Only for voltage drop. It's back to the intent of the original version... with the exception that the original version only required upsizing where a wire-type EGC was required. That is, you originally didn't have to upsize if you used a metallic raceway wiring method.
Click to expand...


Ok , so if you are using a cable size 8 NM and upsize to 6nm . It won't work as #8 and #6 use the same size #10 if I recall correctly.
 
Sierrasparky said:
Ok , so if you are using a cable size 8 NM and upsize to 6nm . It won't work as #8 and #6 use the same size #10 if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...

8 NM is built with 40A circuits in mind, while 6 NM is built with 50 or 60A circuits in mind. All of these use a #10 EGC by default, so a #6 NM with a #8 EGC simply isn't a readily available product.

A solution is that you can put in a 60A breaker (if allowed by your equipment), and then the #10 EGC is sufficient.
 
Sierrasparky said:
Ok , so if you are using a cable size 8 NM and upsize to 6nm . It won't work as #8 and #6 use the same size #10 if I recall correctly.
Click to expand...
Under the prospective wording, depends on the reason for the upsize... which you did not clarify. If the reason is not for voltage drop, yes it will work.
 
Smart $ said:
Under the prospective wording, depends on the reason for the upsize... which you did not clarify. If the reason is not for voltage drop, yes it will work.
Click to expand...

It would work when his area adopts the 2017 NEC, until then no regardless of the claimed reason.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
So if I have 10 awg conductor for de-rating purposes and install a 20 amp overcurrent protective device then I can use a #12 equipment grounding conductor?
Click to expand...

That is true under the 2014. Ampacity is not the number shown on Table 310.15(B)(16). The definition of ampacity is based upon the conditions of use. Therefore, a 10 AWG conductor on a 20A circuit in a raceway with 12 other conductors gets a 12 AWG EGC - the conductor was not upsized, it was sized correctly according to the conditions of its use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top