No secondary over current protection?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks everyone, this has been very helpful. Please keep any thoughts coming.

My guy never did get the voltage measurements but I had already decided to just take ever ones word on it. If I am the only one thinking one way and ever one else is thinking the other way it is time to reconsider my opinion.:)
 
Fusing down below the rated primary current 36 Amps is not advisable. If you were to increase the size of the secondary conductors and add another receptacle there would'nt be a violation.
 
erickench said:
Fusing down below the rated primary current 36 Amps is not advisable. If you were to increase the size of the secondary conductors and add another receptacle there would'nt be a violation.
Click to expand...

Being more stubborn than Bob :), I'll politely and stubbornly disagree.
Addressing the transformer primary will satisfy the protection of CONDUCTORS on the secondary but not necessarily the receptacle or equipment plugged into it. To me, 210.19(C), 240.21(C) and the respective articles for utilization equipment require OCP for the equipment.
 
erickench said:
Fusing down below the rated primary current 36 Amps is not advisable. If you were to increase the size of the secondary conductors and add another receptacle there would'nt be a violation.
Click to expand...

I do not believe I can supply a 60 amp receptacle(s) with more than 60 amps.

I believe that would be inadvisable.

Most likely I will recommend replacing the unfused disconnect on the secondary side with a fused disconnect equipped with 50 amp fuses.
 
erickench said:
Fusing down below the rated primary current 36 Amps is not advisable. If you were to increase the size of the secondary conductors and add another receptacle there would'nt be a violation.
Click to expand...

Correct. Fusing primary below 45A dual element fuse will cause frequent trips. That's pretty much a guarantee. Bussmann recommends starting primary fuses at 125% of primary line current. If you have secondary fusing then you can work your way up to 250% to eliminate nuisance trips.

I insist on secondary fusing at our site. Secondary fusing is sized down to the required load current.

In iwire's application the 8awg conductor is too small to be protected by the primary OCPD by a bunch. 3awg is required (90A+ ampacity). 240.21(C)(1)
Nor does the primary OCPD protect the equipment.
 
augie47 said:
Being more stubborn than Bob :), I'll politely and stubbornly disagree.
Addressing the transformer primary will satisfy the protection of CONDUCTORS on the secondary but not necessarily the receptacle or equipment plugged into it. To me, 210.19(C), 240.21(C) and the respective articles for utilization equipment require OCP for the equipment.
Click to expand...

The transformer primary OCPD cannot be addressed. I guarantee you won't make that transformer work fusing below 45A without a lot of trips on inrush.

I'm not sure what all the receptacle talk is about regarding 240.21(C). This section only refers to the secondary conductors. The primary OCPD never protects downstream equipment. 240.21(C)(6) requires downstream protection even for protected secondary conductors before 25'.

So, yes augie47. Fuse for the equipment. You're right.
 
From Bob
"Could I supply a 60 amp receptacle without OCP?"


don_resqcapt19 said:
Bob,
Yes, a ground fault alarm would be required. There is also a possible issue with 250.20(B)(1), but my take on that is since one of the ungrounded conductors will exceed 150 volts to ground if you bond X4, that this system is not a system that is required to be grounded as long as there are no line to neutral loads.

The secondary wire and receptacle would have to be rated for 90 amps if you keep the 45 amp primary OCPD.

You would be legal with 60 amp secondary conductors and the 60 amp receptacle if you changed the primary OCPD to 30 amps. If you do that there may be an issue with the transformer inrush tripping the primary OCPD.
Click to expand...




Where in the NEC is there permission to supply equipment without OCPD and use a ground fault alarm?
 
pfalcon said:
Transformers are multi-use devices. With X4 not connected this is a single voltage transformer by usage. The tag covers all configurations that may be made. Circuit design determines whether 240.21(C)(1) applies.
Click to expand...

I don?t know; does this also mean we can supply it backwards?

The misuse of an ungrounded system is dangerous. A grounded system that is not grounded is still a grounded system (i.e. 120v circuitry included yet not grounded/bonded at XFMR or 1st disconnect; this would be a system in violation). An intentional ungrounded system also includes alarming/annunciation for faults 250.21(B) it is also intended for critical machinery.

250.20(A)(1) ?Where the system can be grounded?? this XFMR is manufactured so it can be grounded because it includes the X4 term.
 
tryinghard said:
I don?t know; does this also mean we can supply it backwards?

The misuse of an ungrounded system is dangerous. A grounded system that is not grounded is still a grounded system (i.e. 120v circuitry included yet not grounded/bonded at XFMR or 1st disconnect; this would be a system in violation). An intentional ungrounded system also includes alarming/annunciation for faults 250.21(B) it is also intended for critical machinery.

250.20(A)(1) ?Where the system can be grounded?? this XFMR is manufactured so it can be grounded because it includes the X4 term.
Click to expand...

No sure about your Code reference. In the '08 Code, 250.20(A)(1) references systems less than 50 volts.
But, in reference, to your comment, I entered this thread thinking the same since the transformer should be grounded under the rules of 250.21(B)(1), but Cold Fusion set me straight in post #27. In using X4, one of the leads would provide voltage in excess of 150 volts, therefore 250.20(B)(1) does not apply.
 
I believe the rule about receptacles is this. If you have two or more, each receptacle rating cannot be larger than the rating of the circuit. If you have only one receptacle, that single receptacle rating cannot be less than the rating of the circuit. So adding another 60 Amp receptacle should take care of that one violation.
 
augie47 said:
...I entered this thread thinking the same since the transformer should be grounded under the rules of 250.21(B)(1), but Cold Fusion set me straight in post #27. In using X4, one of the leads would provide voltage in excess of 150 volts, therefore 250.20(B)(1) does not apply.
Click to expand...

I saw that and still believe it as you stated. Two of the ungrounded conductors meet this criteria.

...maximum voltage to ground on the grounded conductors..." is interpetive to any as well; not just all. Because of this I would default to safety and ground it. :)
 
tryinghard said:
I don?t know; does this also mean we can supply it backwards?

The misuse of an ungrounded system is dangerous. A grounded system that is not grounded is still a grounded system (i.e. 120v circuitry included yet not grounded/bonded at XFMR or 1st disconnect; this would be a system in violation). An intentional ungrounded system also includes alarming/annunciation for faults 250.21(B) it is also intended for critical machinery.

250.20(A)(1) ?Where the system can be grounded?? this XFMR is manufactured so it can be grounded because it includes the X4 term.
Click to expand...

No, it means you can wire it in keeping with its listed usage. Most transformers of this type do not require X4.
 
pfalcon said:
No, it means you can wire it in keeping with its listed usage. Most transformers of this type do not require X4.
Click to expand...

Thats my point as well, it is listed and manufactured as a grounded system transformer. Two of the ungrounded conductors can be 120v to ground therefore it requires grounding and would be in violation if ungrounded.:)

In my industrial circles most of our 240v delta's are grounded systems, our ungrounded systems are 480v.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top