310.15(b)(6)

Status
Not open for further replies.
The term "ampacity" is not used in 215.2(A)(3).

"Feeder conductors for individual dwelling units or mobile homes need not be larger than service conductors."

:grin:)

I agree and I have no answer to 215.2(A)(3). There seems to be a contradiction in the two sections.
 
Thank you, John, and others,
Although my mind remains fuzzy (a permanent inspector trait) after your input and input from my mentor, a very knowledgable CMP member, I will accept that 215.2 along with 310.15(B)(6) will allow the interior SE feeder to be sized no larger than the exterior service.
 
Thank you, John, and others,
Although my mind remains fuzzy (a permanent inspector trait) after your input and input from my mentor, a very knowledgable CMP member, I will accept that 215.2 along with 310.15(B)(6) will allow the interior SE feeder to be sized no larger than the exterior service.

Do you agree that that applies to SER cable as well. I still think that is a separate issue.
 
Do you agree that that applies to SER cable as well. I still think that is a separate issue.

why do you do that to me when I finally rationalized stuff:D:D
are you questioning SE cable in general or just SER ?? and if just SER, why ?
 
why do you do that to me when I finally rationalized stuff:D:D
are you questioning SE cable in general or just SER ?? and if just SER, why ?

The first answer is, because I can. :wink::smile: The second answer would be, SER, because SER would be used after an OCP, and that is when the ampacity factor becomes, well, a factor.
 
Thank you, John, and others,
Although my mind remains fuzzy (a permanent inspector trait) after your input and input from my mentor, a very knowledgable CMP member, I will accept that 215.2 along with 310.15(B)(6) will allow the interior SE feeder to be sized no larger than the exterior service.



I am not sure that I agree.

Article 215 is for sizing feeders in general.

Article 338 requires conductors installed in SE Cable to be sized according to the 60C column.

215.2(A)(3) gives permission to use Table 310.15(B)(6) and says that the feeder conductors are not required to be larger than the service conductors.

It does not go further though, in permitting 338.10(A)(4)(a) to be disregarded.


With that said, if the wiring method used is Type SE Cable, than we use the proper sizes based on Table 310.16, 60C column.
If it is other than SE Cable, I believe there is enough "meat" in 215.2(A)(3) to permit the conductors to be the same size as the Service Entrance Conductors.
 
...The second answer would be, SER,...

After a little bit of thought the right answer should have been SE. I do not generally consider SE as a feeder. It is either a SE application or a branch circuit, but I guess there are instances where it is a feeder to HVAC panels, etc. Either way, I still do not think there is exceptions around it in this case.
 
I am not sure that I agree.

Article 215 is for sizing feeders in general.

Article 338 requires conductors installed in SE Cable to be sized according to the 60C column.

215.2(A)(3) gives permission to use Table 310.15(B)(6) and says that the feeder conductors are not required to be larger than the service conductors.

It does not go further though, in permitting 338.10(A)(4)(a) to be disregarded.


With that said, if the wiring method used is Type SE Cable, than we use the proper sizes based on Table 310.16, 60C column.
If it is other than SE Cable, I believe there is enough "meat" in 215.2(A)(3) to permit the conductors to be the same size as the Service Entrance Conductors.

I love it when two knowledgable people I respect and admire provide conflicting answers on Code sections I have to enforce and don't understand :D
Pierre, for whats its worth,my mentor, at first agreed larger feeder, but then came back and said based on 215,2 and the fact that SE is specifically included in Table 310.15(B)(6) that the feeder could be the same size.

I guess I;'ll remain confused.....
 
I love it when two knowledgable people I respect and admire provide conflicting answers on Code sections I have to enforce and don't understand :D
Pierre, for whats its worth,my mentor, at first agreed larger feeder, but then came back and said based on 215,2 and the fact that SE is specifically included in Table 310.15(B)(6) that the feeder could be the same size.

I guess I;'ll remain confused.....

OK, now I am confused, also. :rolleyes: There do appear to be some rather serious contridictions going on here.
 
OK, now I am confused, also. :rolleyes: There do appear to be some rather serious contridictions going on here.
Thom, I will tell you this, no matter what we think, Ron our head state inspector says the larger conductor is necessary. I argued with him for 1/2 hr. on it but I was unaware of art. 215.2. Personally I think (uh oh- me thinking) that art. 310.15(B)(6) got changed years ago but no one every changed 215.2. This is a total guess on my part.
 
I thought I would share this ,..if as many say in 2008 the requirement remains the same ,.. just clarified ,.. then this might be an interesting look back in time ..

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/foc/cmp6.htm

Question 6. We are writing to request clarification of Section 310-15(b)(6) [1999 NEC]. We are electrical contractors doing service work in 34 different jurisdictions on the central coast of California. The inspectors in one local jurisdiction have taken this section (per the clarification on page 153 of the IAEI Analysis of the 1999 National Electrical Code) to apply only to the main power feeders (between the main disconnect and the branch-circuit panel board) and not to the service-entrance conductors. We take the section to mean that for single-phase, 120/240-volt, 3-wire residential service, the service-entrance conductors, as well as the service-lateral conductors, as well as the feeder conductors can all be sized according to Table 310-15(b)(6).

By our interpretation, when we install or replace a typical 100-A, single-phase residential service, we will use 4 AWG copper service-entrance conductors. These local inspectors would have us use 3 AWG (which is not generally available, so we have to use 2 AWG). Which interpretation is correct? — V. K.

Answer 6. Section 310-15(b)(6) in NEC- 1999 was previously the text in note 3 to the ampacity tables of 0 to 2000 volts. If a single set of 3-wire, single-phase, service-entrance conductors in a raceway or cable supplies a one-family, two-family, or multifamily dwelling, the reduced conductor size permitted by Section 310-15(b)(6) is applicable to the service-entrance conductors, service-lateral conductors, or any feeder conductors that supply the main power feeder to a dwelling unit. This section permits the main power feeder to a dwelling unit to be sized based on the conductor sizes in table 310-15(b)(6) even if other loads, such as air conditioning units and swimming pools, are fed from the same. The feeder conductors to a dwelling are not required to be larger than its service-entrance conductors. An example of this would be if you installed the service panel outside and from that location fed an air-conditioning unit, then ran a feeder into the dwelling unit to a subpanel, that feeder would be sized from table 310-15(b)(6), the 4 AWG copper would be 100 amps, and 2 AWG aluminum would also be 100 amps.— O. P. Post, CMP-6
 
Last edited:
I thought I would share this ,..if as many say in 2008 the requirement remains the same ,.. just clarified ,.. then this might be an interesting look back in time ..

http://www.iaei.org/subscriber/foc/cmp6.htm

Again I don't have the older code books but I thought, in the past, that art.310.15(B)(6) use to state "larger conductor".. Now it states "larger ampacity"... Am I mistaken on this?
 
from 1987 nec


Three wire, Single Phase Dwelling Services


In dwelling units, conductors, as listed below, shall be permitted to be utilized as three wire, single phase, service entrance conductors and the three wire, single phase feeder that carries the total current supplied by that service . Grounded service entrance conductors shall be permitted to be two AWG sizes smaller than the ungrounded conductors provided the requirements of section 230.42 are met
 
Again I don't have the older code books but I thought, in the past, that art.310.15(B)(6) use to state "larger conductor".. Now it states "larger ampacity"... Am I mistaken on this?

Dennis, you are correct, and now you have me leaning back the other way.
It does say: The feeder conductors to a dwelling unit shall not be required to have an allowable ampacity rating greater than their service-entrance conductors.
therefore: since the inteior SE is based on 60? , you would be justified in required a cable with the same 60? ampacity as your service 75?.

Pierre ????
 
Dennis, you are correct, and now you have me leaning back the other way.
It does say: The feeder conductors to a dwelling unit shall not be required to have an allowable ampacity rating greater than their service-entrance conductors.
therefore: since the inteior SE is based on 60? , you would be justified in required a cable with the same 60? ampacity as your service 75?.

Pierre ????

Gus,

310.15(A)(1) Ampacity for conductors shall be permitted to be determined by tables as

provided in 310.15(B).

In table 310.15(B)(6) Conductor Types and Sizes, Type SE is included.

The first column in the table is labeled "Service or Feeder Rating""(Amperes)".

The service and the feeder conductors are allowed to use the table for 'allowable'

ampacity rating. imo.
 
Thom, I will tell you this, no matter what we think, Ron our head state inspector says the larger conductor is necessary. I argued with him for 1/2 hr. on it but I was unaware of art. 215.2. Personally I think (uh oh- me thinking) that art. 310.15(B)(6) got changed years ago but no one every changed 215.2. This is a total guess on my part.

I hope he will call me back on another question I had. He is away from the office until tomorrow. If I/he have time I want to bring that up with him again in respect to 215.2. But as you said, he is all for the larger wire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top