Parking Lot lighting, Branch circuit sizing

[lynch_family]

I have a parking lot lighting project that is designed with 40amp (6awg) 208v circuits for the parking lot lighting. Applying 240.5(B)(2) do you consider the ballast wiring of the luminaire head the tap wiring or the wiring ran (12awg) from the top of the pole heads (tied to the 16awg ballast wiring) to the base and tied into the 6awg wire. I understand that fuses inside of the pole are not considered as branch circuit protection so I want to make sure that my branch circuit protection is correct for the application.

 

[480sparky]

The wiring between the base & the luminaire is part of the branch circuit, and must be protected accordingly.

Whatever factory wiring is in the fixture is outside the NEC.

 

[infinity]

Will there be an OCPD in each pole base? If so I see the 40 amp circuit as a feeder, the conductors to the OCPD a tap and the branch circuit on the load side of the OCPD feeding the light.

 

[lynch_family]

So if the wiring sticking out of the head is not considered fixture wiring then what would it be considered. Is this correct; the fixture wiring is the wiring going from the branch circuit (6awg, protected by a 40amp device) and the tapped (12awg protected by the same 40amp device) is fixture wire. The wiring in the luminaire that we splice on to is not relavent?

 

[lynch_family]

240.10 doesn't reconize the fuses as branch circuit protection.

 

[lynch_family]

The wiring between the base & the luminaire is part of the branch circuit, and must be protected accordingly.

Whatever factory wiring is in the fixture is outside the NEC.

If factory luminaire wiring is not taken into consideration then why not run 40amp lighting circuits in homes and don't tap any receptacles off of it. We could consider the wiring from the tap to the switch and then to the fixture as the fixture wiring. Correct?

 

[JES2727]

So if the wiring sticking out of the head is not considered fixture wiring then what would it be considered. Is this correct; the fixture wiring is the wiring going from the branch circuit (6awg, protected by a 40amp device) and the tapped (12awg protected by the same 40amp device) is fixture wire. The wiring in the luminaire that we splice on to is not relavent?

The wiring inside the fixture itself ( the "ballast wiring" which you referred to in your first post ) is the fixture wiring. The wiring inside the pole is circuit wiring. If the ballast wires are sticking into the top of the pole because that's where you chose to make your splice, they're still fixture wires.

If factory luminaire wiring is not taken into consideration then why not run 40amp lighting circuits in homes and don't tap any receptacles off of it. We could consider the wiring from the tap to the switch and then to the fixture as the fixture wiring. Correct?

The wires from the switch to the fixture as fixture wiring? No, I don't think so. That's circuit wiring. The wires that are attached to the light socket, they are fixture wires.

 

[lynch_family]

The wiring inside the fixture itself ( the "ballast wiring" which you referred to in your first post ) is the fixture wiring. The wiring inside the pole is circuit wiring. If the ballast wires are sticking into the top of the pole because that's where you chose to make your splice, they're still fixture wires.


The wires from the switch to the fixture as fixture wiring? No, I don't think so. That's circuit wiring. The wires that are attached to the light socket, they are fixture wires.

So could you have a 40amp branch circuit feeding pole heads that have factory fixture wire sized 16awg? And be code compliant?

 

[JES2727]

So could you have a 40amp branch circuit feeding pole heads that have factory fixture wire sized 16awg? And be code compliant?

Yes. For example, there's zillions of fluorescent lights across the country with #12 or #14 wire connected to #18 ballast wiring.

 

[lynch_family]

Yes. For example, there's zillions of fluorescent lights across the country with #12 or #14 wire connected to #18 ballast wiring.

Yes but what size branch circuit device is protecting them. my heads are protected by a 40amp device and they have 16awg wire. 240.5(A)(2) says that the smallest tap for a 40amp circuit like this is 12awg pretaining to fixture wiring. Wouldn't code compliant be the largest circuit 20amp not 40amp when using 16awg fixture wire inside of the fixture?

 

[raider1]

A fuse installed in the branch circuit conductors at the pole base feeding the light pole would not be supplementary overcurrent protection as talked about in 240.10. When 240.10 talks about supplementary overcurrent protection it is talking about overcurrent protection for internal circuits and components of equipment.

Chris

 

[lynch_family]

A fuse installed in the branch circuit conductors at the pole base feeding the light pole would not be supplementary overcurrent protection as talked about in 240.10. When 240.10 talks about supplementary overcurrent protection it is talking about overcurrent protection for internal circuits and components of equipment.

Chris

What is the requirement as it pretains to branch circuit protection? Doesn't the branch circuit device need to be readily accessible?

 

[JES2727]

Yes but what size branch circuit device is protecting them. my heads are protected by a 40amp device and they have 16awg wire. 240.5(A)(2) says that the smallest tap for a 40amp circuit like this is 12awg pretaining to fixture wiring. Wouldn't code compliant be the largest circuit 20amp not 40amp when using 16awg fixture wire inside of the fixture?

You might be right. Install fuses in the poles.

 

[lynch_family]

You might be right. Install fuses in the poles.

Isn't that fuse pretaining to 240.10 not proper branch circuit protection. And for say a fuse is used for branch circuit protection would have to comply with 240.24. Is the inside of an energized pole readily accessible? Also you would need to comply with 70E before servicing this pole to get to the OCPD (fuse). I think the code compliant answer is to reduce the OCPD to a 20amp breaker and add in an extra circuit. Comments?

 

[bob]

Isn't that fuse pertaining to 240.10 not proper branch circuit protection. And for say a fuse is used for branch circuit protection would have to comply with 240.24. Is the inside of an energized pole readily accessible? Also you would need to comply with 70E before servicing this pole to get to the OCPD (fuse). I think the code compliant answer is to reduce the OCPD to a 20amp breaker and add in an extra circuit. Comments?

Below is an article by Mark Ode, technical writer for U.L, that seems to say that the supplementary fuse is a violation of 240.10.

http://www.ul.com/regulators/ode/0805.pdf

However the #12 is a tap and complies with 240.21.B(2). It seems that the #12 does not need protection if there is a supplementary fuse installed at the ballast.

 

[lynch_family]

Below is an article by Mark Ode, technical writer for U.L, that seems to say that the supplementary fuse is a violation of 240.10.

http://www.ul.com/regulators/ode/0805.pdf

However the #12 is a tap and complies with 240.21.B(2). It seems that the #12 does not need protection if there is a supplementary fuse installed at the ballast.

Thank you for the paper. It basically says what I was thinking. But it doesn't answer is the wiring that is factory installed on the pole heads (luminaries) considered fixture wiring. If the ballast wiring is considered fixture wiring then since the ballast are pre-wired with 16awg from the factory it would limit these to be placed on a 20amp branch circuit. And since the supplimental protection doesn't count (Pole Fuse or Fuse at head) you could not run a 40amp "Feeder" to all of the poles and then splice with 12awg to fuse holders and consider the poles properly protected. I'm I correct or is there any other ideas?

 

[lynch_family]

Below is an article by Mark Ode, technical writer for U.L, that seems to say that the supplementary fuse is a violation of 240.10.

http://www.ul.com/regulators/ode/0805.pdf

However the #12 is a tap and complies with 240.21.B(2). It seems that the #12 does not need protection if there is a supplementary fuse installed at the ballast.

That fuse is going to be the branch circuit protection so it will need to be readily accessible. A fuse buried in a pole or at the head is not readily accessible by the code.