georgestolz said:
This question may be simple, but to me it is profound.
215.2(A)(1) states that feeders shall be sized at not less than 100% of the non-continuous load, and 125% of the continuous load.
Article 220 does not seem to notice. We are given detailed processes to ascertain the "load", the number by which we actually size feeder conductors.
Is 215.2(A)(1) meaningless?
George; there is a principle that makes it all work. If you don't accept the principle, then it will not be possible for you to reconcile the APPARENT conflict that is resolved by the principle.
The principle is that Article 215 defines the requirements for circuits (Feeders) to supply the LOADS, but Article 220 defines the LOADS that are to be supplied by the feeders.
215.2(A)(1) says that the feeders shall be sized to supply the LOAD calculated in Parts III, IV, and V of Article 220, and requires that the feeders shall have an allowable ampacity not less than the noncontinuous plus 125% of the continuous LOAD. 215.2(A)(1) says NOTHING about what the LOAD is. That is found in Article 220.
220.1 Scope. This article provides requirements for calculating branch-circuit, feeder, and service LOADS. . . .
Article 220 includes requirements for relating the LOADS to be used in Article 215 to the characteristics of the equipment and the installation. That may include LOADS that are less than nameplate ratings, as for ranges, or motor loads that are greater than the full-load ampere ratings marked on the motors.
That may result in LOADS to be used in Articles 210 and 215 that are less than the "nameplate rating" of the connected equipment.
PRINCIPLE: LOADS to be used for sizing circuits per articles 210 and 215, are to be calculated in accordance with Article 220, and are not necessarily the same as the nameplate ratings of the utilization equipment.
That is the reason that Articles 215 and 220 are not redundant.
That is the principle that must be accepted to reconcile the apparent conflict.
