Feeders in metal trough

Tainted said:
so is an empty switchboard section an auxiliary gutter?
Click to expand...
I guess it could be. Metallic auxiliary gutters are not required to be listed, so as long as it meets the definitions and part III of 366 I dont see why not. I have never seen or used one. I dont know if they are usually constructed on site out of a wireway or cabinet or from scratch. I did some googling and couldnt really find anyone selling them.
 
electrofelon said:
I guess it could be. Metallic auxiliary gutters are not required to be listed, so as long as it meets the definitions and part III of 366 I dont see why not. I have never seen or used one. I dont know if they are usually constructed on site out of a wireway or cabinet or from scratch. I did some googling and couldnt really find anyone selling them.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling it might not be considered a auxiliary gutter because now you are only limited to 30 CCC. If I have an empty pull section of a 4000A switchboard, more than 30 CCC would have to enter or come out of the pull section.
 
Grouch1980 said:
Does anything in the NEC prohibit placing multiple feeders serving apartments in a common trough / wireway? Each apartment is fed by a 120/208 volt, single phase, three wire feeder, and it is being discussed to run all of them in a common trough.
Click to expand...
2023 NEC
The Code rules for sizing (common troughs) such as auxiliary gutters, 366.22 (A) ,nonmetallic wireways 378.22, and metal wireways, 376.22(A) found therein shall not exceed 20 percent of the cross sectional area of the aforementioned gutter (s).

Example; a 6 x 6 gutter = 36 square inches (length not considered) 36 square inches x 20 % is available for your conductors.

Consult Chapter 9 Table(s) 5 for approximate area in2 of the conductors.

6 x 6 = 36 in2 X 20 % =7.22 for conductor fill for each of the "troughs". Cannot exceed 7.22

Thanks for reading.
Comments and sarcasm accepted.
TX+MASTER#4544
 
Tainted said:
Now I'm second guessing this. Does this mean you cannot put 40 service conductors in a wireway because a wireway is not a auxiliary gutter? lol
Click to expand...
IMO no it does not mean that because the NYC amendment is for Article 376 metal wireways. Remember that often people use the terms gutter, auxiliary gutter, trough, and wireway interchangeably so in reality it probably means both wireways and auxiliary gutters.

NYC Amendments:
ARTICLE 376
Metal Wireways
SECTION 376.22
Section 376.22 – Add an Exception after subsection (B) to read as follows:
Exception: Metallic auxiliary gutters may contain up to 40 service entrance conductors without applying derating factors.
Click to expand...
 
I've never come across yet having more than 30 CCC's in a metal wireway (usually I'm always in conduit or cable)... but when I do, and use Table 310.15(B)(2)(a), do you immediately jump to a 40% adjustment factor? So if you have 30 CCC's, you're still at 100% (no adjustment factor); but if you have 31 CCC's, you all of a sudden go to 40%?
 
Grouch1980 said:
I've never come across yet having more than 30 CCC's in a metal wireway (usually I'm always in conduit or cable)... but when I do, and use Table 310.15(B)(2)(a), do you immediately jump to a 40% adjustment factor? So if you have 30 CCC's, you're still at 100% (no adjustment factor); but if you have 31 CCC's, you all of a sudden go to 40%?
Click to expand...
Yup. This issue probably the reason why they have this code amendment although for a standard 4000 amp service it is not really necessary because 10 sets would still only be 30 CCC's.
 
Tainted said:
so this means a ground conductor would count?

Edit: Acutally it says 40 service conductors, a ground conductor is not a service conductor so it shouldn't count?
Click to expand...
How is it not a service conductor? You will have problems if you don't run the grounded conductor from the source (other than for ungrounded systems).

40 makes sense - allows 10 conductors per phase and 10 grounded conductors.

Not very often would you have that many parallel sets for single phase. and 40 doesn't divide by three.
 
TX+ MASTER#4544 said:
2023 NEC
The Code rules for sizing (common troughs) such as auxiliary gutters, 366.22 (A) ,nonmetallic wireways 378.22, and metal wireways, 376.22(A) found therein shall not exceed 20 percent of the cross sectional area of the aforementioned gutter (s).

Example; a 6 x 6 gutter = 36 square inches (length not considered) 36 square inches x 20 % is available for your conductors.

Consult Chapter 9 Table(s) 5 for approximate area in2 of the conductors.

6 x 6 = 36 in2 X 20 % =7.22 for conductor fill for each of the "troughs". Cannot exceed 7.22

Thanks for reading.
Comments and sarcasm accepted.
TX+MASTER#4544
Click to expand...
2023 NEC
230.7.".....circuit conductors other than service conductors shall not be installed in the same raceway, cable, handhole........etc.
Check also Article 100 Definitions of Raceway, Surface Metal......" and Raceway, surface nonmetallic.
TX+MASTER#4544
 
TX+ MASTER#4544 said:
2023 NEC
230.7.".....circuit conductors other than service conductors shall not be installed in the same raceway, cable, handhole........etc.
Check also Article 100 Definitions of Raceway, Surface Metal......" and Raceway, surface nonmetallic.
TX+MASTER#4544
Click to expand...
Before we go off too far on a tangent the OP is referring to the 2008 NEC and the NYC electrical code amendments.
 
infinity said:
Before we go off too far on a tangent the OP is referring to the 2008 NEC and the NYC electrical code amendments.
Click to expand...
2023 NEC
How do you enforce a 16 year old legal document, like the electrical Code?
I've heard of a New York minute, but.........
Y'all are still back in the 20th century. I LOVE NY
TX+MASTER#4544
 
TX+ MASTER#4544 said:
2023 NEC
How do you enforce a 16 year old legal document, like the electrical Code?
I've heard of a New York minute, but.........
Y'all are still back in the 20th century. I LOVE NY
TX+MASTER#4544
Click to expand...
They are also way behind the rest of the state. Upstate is in process of going from the 17 straight to the 23.
Tainted said:
You are correct, I don't normally do it but I've seen it happen see pic below. Those service conductors are going to two sets of troughs and you can see the ground going with them. Pic is taken inside below a service end box.

View attachment 2574678
Click to expand...
Hope someone is cleaning out all that saw dust, wood chips, and plaster or concrete chunks.
 
infinity said:
Even though we're merely days away from 2025 NYC has announced that they're in the process of adopting the 2020 NEC. That should remain in place for at least a decade.
Click to expand...
do they typically make quite a few amendments? or what is the reason for that long of a time period between updates?

Here it has occasionally been some opposition by builders associations lobbying against updating causing delays, 2020 also had the pandemic along with other legislation that took high enough priority they never got to the bill during legislative session that would have adopted the 2020 NEC. Those other priorities also kept it out for 21, 22 and 23. We ended up going from 2017 to 2023 earlier this year. They did happen to amend it so that 210.8 A is basically the same as it was for 2017, and did eliminate the emergency disconnect rules for dwellings as well.
 
kwired said:
do they typically make quite a few amendments? or what is the reason for that long of a time period between updates?
Click to expand...
The NYC amendments to the 2008 NEC is about 78 pages long with another 20+ pages of administrative changes so yes they do have quite a few amendments. The fact that they wait a long time to move on to a new code cycle is actually smart because they don't have to retrain their inspectors and plan reviewers every three years like the rest of the world that immediately updates their code to the newest version of the NEC.
 
2023 NEC
When I was voted into office as a city council member here in my city, first thing I did was when the state adopted that particular electrical Code cycle edition, I strongly urged all council members and the mayor to immediately adopt it as our legal document to protect the public as well as those who install any electrical wiring.

It was my understanding that if a city does not officially adopt the current version, then it is not a legal instrument that can be used for protection for the general public and electrical contractors.

Thanks for reading.
Comments accepted.
TX+MASTER#4544
 
TX+ MASTER#4544 said:
It was my understanding that if a city does not officially adopt the current version, then it is not a legal instrument that can be used for protection for the general public and electrical contractors.
Click to expand...
Is this part of Texas law because I have no idea what you're saying can you explain? A jurisdiction is free to adopt whatever code they want, then can even ignore the NEC and write their own electrical code.
 
infinity said:
The NYC amendments to the 2008 NEC is about 78 pages long with another 20+ pages of administrative changes so yes they do have quite a few amendments. The fact that they wait a long time to move on to a new code cycle is actually smart because they don't have to retrain their inspectors and plan reviewers every three years like the rest of the world that immediately updates their code to the newest version of the NEC.
Click to expand...
Seems they might as well have their own code even if a lot of it is based on NEC, code sort of like California does.

Seems it would be a pain to look at NEC to answer whatever question you have then have to go to another publication to make sure what you found has no amendments.

Amendments we have here are fairly minimal, and in past was often just NEC with no amendments.
 
TX+ MASTER#4544 said:
, I strongly urged all council members and the mayor to immediately adopt it as our legal document to protect the public as well as those who install any electrical wiring.



Thanks for reading.
Comments accepted.
TX+MASTER#4544
Click to expand...


I find that thinking naive and shortsighted. Most of the code changes in the last three or four code cycles, in my opinion, do not result in any significant increase in safety. Most of the big changes were not based on any real world statistical problems. In my opinion what we need is for jurisdictions to NOT just blindly adopt the latest version of the NEC.
 
electrofelon said:
I find that thinking naive and shortsighted. Most of the code changes in the last three or four code cycles, in my opinion, do not result in any significant increase in safety. Most of the big changes were not based on any real world statistical problems. In my opinion what we need is for jurisdictions to NOT just blindly adopt the latest version of the NEC.
Click to expand...
Most the added GFCI requirements since the turn of the century had no real world problems for justification or only were based on one incident that possibly had other contributing issues.

I recall trying to find reasons for requiring three pole GFCI's when those came into play and about the only justification I could find was something to the effect of we have the ability to do that now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top