Leave, remove, ignore?

Status
Not open for further replies.
tkb

tkb

Senior Member
Location
MA
realolman said:
Isn't the EMT sufficient for the EGC without the undersized EGC's
Click to expand...

So if the EMT is sufficent as the EGC, why wouldn't the undersized EGC conductors be allowed? They add fault capacity to the EMT.

I understand that the properly sized EGC in PVC, but EMT?
 
R

realolman

Senior Member
tkb said:
So if the EMT is sufficent as the EGC, why wouldn't the undersized EGC conductors be allowed? They add fault capacity to the EMT.

I understand that the properly sized EGC in PVC, but EMT?
Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking
 
pete m.

pete m.

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
tkb said:
So if the EMT is sufficent as the EGC, why wouldn't the undersized EGC conductors be allowed? They add fault capacity to the EMT.

I understand that the properly sized EGC in PVC, but EMT?
Click to expand...

Since the EMT is sufficient (which I think we all agree on) how does having an EGC that is under-sized make it any less of a code violation?

I won't argue that the EGC, from the OP, will not add to the fault capacity of the bonding path but I will argue that it is a code violation and as such I could not approve it.

Pete
 
tkb

tkb

Senior Member
Location
MA
pete m. said:
Since the EMT is sufficient (which I think we all agree on) how does having an EGC that is under-sized make it any less of a code violation?

I won't argue that the EGC, from the OP, will not add to the fault capacity of the bonding path but I will argue that it is a code violation and as such I could not approve it.

Pete
Click to expand...

I agree that the undersized EGC in the EMT is a code violation, but it doesn't make sense because the EMT is a sufficient EGC to begin with and the EGC conductors are supplemental.

But we are talking NEC and not logic or common sense. :lol:
 
kwired

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
tkb said:
So if the EMT is sufficent as the EGC, why wouldn't the undersized EGC conductors be allowed? They add fault capacity to the EMT.

I understand that the properly sized EGC in PVC, but EMT?
Click to expand...

So if the EGC were 12AWG you would still feel this way? If not, what size is acceptable vs not acceptable, and why?
 
dlhoule

dlhoule

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
tkb said:
So if the EMT is sufficent as the EGC, why wouldn't the undersized EGC conductors be allowed? They add fault capacity to the EMT.

I understand that the properly sized EGC in PVC, but EMT?
Click to expand...

I've seen rigid conduit a few years after installation where there wasn't a good fault path. I'd say leave them there if possible.
 
Twoskinsoneman

Twoskinsoneman

Senior Member
Location
West Virginia, USA NEC: 2020
Occupation
Facility Senior Electrician
ptonsparky said:
Industrial is expanding a building and local codes have changed enough that they are now required to provide at least a single line drawing of the electrical system to the city. We put the service in years ago and the plant electrician has done the work since then. They had installed a 601 amp feeder in preparation for this expansion and to feed some equipment along the way. Three 2" emt conduits with 3/0 phase conductors and a #4 EG in each. I mentioned that they should have had 1/0 EGs, if used. Their question is "Remove the EGs completely, cut them off, or just leave it alone?" (Most likely the building officials won't catch it anyway.)
Click to expand...

What is the ambient temp these conductors are in?
If it is less than 78F than the correction would let you squeeze that extra amp out and let tkb sleep peacefully tonight :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top