line_noise
Member
This one has me stumped. NEC 430.24 (2002 Edition) states that I can size conductors supplying several motors at 125% of the largest motor plus the sum of the other motors. However, NEC 215.2 states that the minimum feeder conductor size shall sized at 125% or more of the sum of all continuous loads, plus 100% of the non-continuous loads.
NEC 215.2 also references NEC 220, which specifically references 430.24. The example in Annex D also seems to allow 430.24. It seems to me that NEC 430.24 shouldn't even exist if it couldn't be applied to a feeder.
I have a panel that I want to serve 3 motors out of. The panel and its feeder conductors are rated 400 amperes, three phase, 480V, and the three motors are (2) 124A, 77A, and 11A, per tables in 430. Which is correct?
125%*(124+124+77+11)= 420A = violation per NEC 215.2
or
125%*124+124+77+11= 367A = OK per NEC 430.24
I can also convince myself that this will work fine, since even though the NEC doesn't permit this, the nameplate amperes of energy efficient motors, plus the power factor correction means we have, will reduce the continuous loads below 320A.
[ June 17, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: line_noise ]
NEC 215.2 also references NEC 220, which specifically references 430.24. The example in Annex D also seems to allow 430.24. It seems to me that NEC 430.24 shouldn't even exist if it couldn't be applied to a feeder.
I have a panel that I want to serve 3 motors out of. The panel and its feeder conductors are rated 400 amperes, three phase, 480V, and the three motors are (2) 124A, 77A, and 11A, per tables in 430. Which is correct?
125%*(124+124+77+11)= 420A = violation per NEC 215.2
or
125%*124+124+77+11= 367A = OK per NEC 430.24
I can also convince myself that this will work fine, since even though the NEC doesn't permit this, the nameplate amperes of energy efficient motors, plus the power factor correction means we have, will reduce the continuous loads below 320A.
[ June 17, 2005, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: line_noise ]