You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
210.19(A)
- Thread starter Pinnie
- Start date
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
Someone here pointed me at Example D3(a), along with an earlier version of 210.19(A) that was clearer.How did you learn that did someone have to teach you or were you able to decipher that somehow
Cheers, Wayne
Gotcha. I should look at the examples I never have. Thank you again.Someone here pointed me at Example D3(a), along with an earlier version of 210.19(A) that was clearer.
Cheers, Wayne
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
That's the right idea.Old thread but I’m now in 230.42(a)(1) and (a)(2) and am faced with the same confusion. Is is safe to say (a)(1) is 110.14(c)(1) and (a)(2) is 310.14?
The way I would put it is that 230.42(a)(1) is the analogue of 210.19(A)(1)(a), and they and 110.14(C)(1) are about termination provisions. These sections use the ampacity table 310.16 just as a lookup for current to wire size, based on the termination temperature rating, and do not apply adjustment or correction.
Whereas 230.42(a)(2) is the analogue of 210.19(A)(1)(b) and is actually about ampacity as defined in Article 100 and calculated according to 310.14.
Similarly you have 215.2(A)(1)(a) vs (b) and 705.28(B)(1) vs (2), plus probably others. They are all saying the same thing, and I think 705.28(B) expresses the difference best. Note that in 705.28(B) the currents are considered continuous, so it just references 125% rather than 125% of the continuous portion plus 100% of the rest.
Cheers, Wayne
Awesome. Thank you very much!That's the right idea.
The way I would put it is that 230.42(a)(1) is the analogue of 210.19(A)(1)(a), and they and 110.14(C)(1) are about termination provisions. These sections use the ampacity table 310.16 just as a lookup for current to wire size, based on the termination temperature rating, and do not apply adjustment or correction.
Whereas 230.42(a)(2) is the analogue of 210.19(A)(1)(b) and is actually about ampacity as defined in Article 100 and calculated according to 310.14.
Similarly you have 215.2(A)(1)(a) vs (b) and 705.28(B)(1) vs (2), plus probably others. They are all saying the same thing, and I think 705.28(B) expresses the difference best. Note that in 705.28(B) the currents are considered continuous, so it just references 125% rather than 125% of the continuous portion plus 100% of the rest.
Cheers, Wayne
Reading 705.28(2).Similarly you have 215.2(A)(1)(a) vs (b) and 705.28(B)(1) vs (2), plus probably others. They are all saying the same thing, and I think 705.28(B) expresses the difference best. Note that in 705.28(B) the currents are considered continuous, so it just references 125% rather than 125% of the continuous portion plus 100% of the rest.
Cheers, Wayne
It says “(2) the maximum currents in 705.28(A) after the application of adjustment and correction factors in accordance with 310.14”
The way I’m reading this (and the other similar code rules) is that it’s telling me to apply the adjustment and correction factors to the load rather than to the conductor. This is part of what makes this tricky for me to internalize every time I read these. Am I reading it wrong or is this a wording issue in the code?
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
Adjustment and correction factors are only applied to ampacities, so that is implicit. I agree that the sentence structure is awkward, because it seems to be applying them to "the maximum currents in 705.28(A)".Reading 705.28(2).
It says “(2) the maximum currents in 705.28(A) after the application of adjustment and correction factors in accordance with 310.14”
The way I’m reading this (and the other similar code rules) is that it’s telling me to apply the adjustment and correction factors to the load rather than to the conductor.
Cheers, Wayne
Thank you again, making sure I’m not crazy.Adjustment and correction factors are only applied to ampacities, so that is implicit. I agree that the sentence structure is awkward, because it seems to be applying them to "the maximum currents in 705.28(A)".
Cheers, Wayne