Box fill Counting ground conductors, NEC 2020 change

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

brother

Senior Member
Location
"I have learned, in whatsoever STATE I am, therewi
I'm trying to get clarity on the change they made for counting the ground conductors in the NEC 2020 change for box fill. 314.16 (B) (5) says A 1/4 volume allowance applies for each additional equipment grounding conductor or equipment bonding jumper that enters the box, based on the largest equipment grounding or bonding jumper.

So my question would be, if you have a # 10 grounding conductor that has a volume of 2.5, do you take a 1/4 of the 2.5 , (2.5 X 0.25 = 0.625) and count
the additional grounding conductors? or is it done differently.

I think they made this change because too many issues come up where boxes had numerous grounds coming in (with huge wire nuts) and only counted as 1 conductor basically in reallity not leaving any space in the boxes. Got one job gong on and they have existing boxes and runs and got 4 pipes entering, and largest ground is #10 and rest are # 12's and they want to add a disconnect switch to the box. I dont really like adding/using extension rings too much because there times where I seen we had to remove them to get to some wiring and the had pipe coming out it! Only add them If i really have to and it more conducive to do so.
 
brother said:
So my question would be, if you have a # 10 grounding conductor that has a volume of 2.5, do you take a 1/4 of the 2.5 , (2.5 X 0.25 = 0.625) and count the additional grounding conductors?
Click to expand...
That's how I read it. If you have 12 EGCs, they are added as 3 #10s.
 
If you have 4 or less EGCs you take the full volume of the largest EGC...the 1/4 volume only kicks in for the 5th and additional EGCs. For the ones over 4, you use 1/4 of the volume of each additional EGC, based on the actual volume of the conductor being used.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
If you have 4 or less EGCs you take the full volume of the largest EGC...the 1/4 volume only kicks in for the 5th and additional EGCs. For the ones over 4, you use 1/4 of the volume of each additional EGC, based on the actual volume of the conductor being used.
Click to expand...
That sounds like for, say, (4) #12s and (1) #14, you'd use an allowance of 1 #12 and 1/4 #14. But the language in 2020 314.16(B)(5) reads to me that it would be 1-1/4 #12 allowances--you always use the largest size present.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
That sounds like for, say, (4) #12s and (1) #14, you'd use an allowance of 1 #12 and 1/4 #14. But the language in 2020 314.16(B)(5) reads to me that it would be 1-1/4 #12 allowances--you always use the largest size present.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
The second sentence that applies to more than 4 EGCs is not completely clear. I can see it being read either way, but my opinion is that it is based on the largest of the additional conductors.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The second sentence that applies to more than 4 EGCs is not completely clear. I can see it being read either way, but my opinion is that it is based on the largest of the additional conductors.
Click to expand...
I agree it can be read either way. But the previous sentence uses the phrase "largest equipment grounding conductor . . . entering the box," so I think the more typical reading is that the second use of "largest equipment grounding conductor" means the same as in the previous sentence, rather than "largest equipment grounding conductor of the additional conductors."

Another issue with the ""largest equipment grounding conductor of the additional conductors" interpretation is that nothing says which of the 4 EGCs are the "first" 4 and which are the "additional." If you require that the "first" 4 be taken to be the 4 smallest, then the two interpretations will give you the same answer, as the largest "entering the box" will be one of the "additional" ones.

Cheers, Wayne
 
An example would be?
One #10 with five other #12
The fill for EGC would be @ 1-#10 and then #12 for the remainder or .5 of a #12
 
Tulsa Electrician said:
An example would be?
One #10 with five other #12
The fill for EGC would be @ 1-#10 and then #12 for the remainder or .5 of a #12
Click to expand...
That was Don's interpretation.

But what if I say (4) of the #12s are the first four, so they get (1) #10 (largest size entering), and then the "additional" is (1) #10 and (1) #12, which gets 0.5 of a #10 (largest size in the additional)? Then you just get 1.5 of a #10.

The latter interpretation is more conservative and IMO is what is intended by the text. It's equivalent to treating the word "largest" in the second sentence to mean "largest entering," not "largest of the additional."

Cheers, Wayne
 
I see what your saying. Nothing in the verbage says use all of the largest first.
I do not have a 2020 to read. Can some one post up the section so I can read.
Thanks.
 
wwhitney said:
That was Don's interpretation.

But what if I say (4) of the #12s are the first four, so they get (1) #10 (largest size entering), and then the "additional" is (1) #10 and (1) #12, which gets 0.5 of a #10 (largest size in the additional)? Then you just get 1.5 of a #10.

The latter interpretation is more conservative and IMO is what is intended by the text. It's equivalent to treating the word "largest" in the second sentence to mean "largest entering," not "largest of the additional."

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I have never understood not counting the full volume of an EGC....volume is volume and it doesn't matter what color the insulation may be.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I have never understood not counting the full volume of an EGC....volume is volume and it doesn't matter what color the insulation may be.
Click to expand...
Certainly agreed, the only justification I can think of is that the box fill computation is attempting to also impose a heat dissipation requirement, for which EGCs can be ignored as they don't dissipate heat during normal operations.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Certainly agreed, the only justification I can think of is that the box fill computation is attempting to also impose a heat dissipation requirement, for which EGCs can be ignored as they don't dissipate heat during normal operations.
Click to expand...
Agreed; that and their being smaller without insulation.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I have never understood not counting the full volume of an EGC....volume is volume and it doesn't matter what color the insulation may be.
Click to expand...
Engineer I know says they defy the laws of physics......
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top