Sizing based on largest ungrounded condcutor

Status
Not open for further replies.
mbrooke

mbrooke

Batteries Included
Location
United States
Occupation
Technician
What would you think if the NEC changed 250.122 to:

"Table 250.122 Minimum Size Equipment Grounding
Conductors for Grounding Raceway and Equipment"



"Size of largest ungrounded copper conductor" "Copper"

#14 #14
#12 #12
#10 #10
#8 #10
#6 #8
#4 #8
#3 #6
#2 #4
#1 #4
#1/0 #4
#2/0 #4
#3/0 #3
#4/0 #3
#250 #3
#350 #2

ect
 
Why would you change this.. What is your substantiation.
You don't just make up numbers because you think it is better so Where did those numbers come from?

BTW, I hate the idea. LOL
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Why would you change this.. What is your substantiation.
You don't just make up numbers because you think it is better so Where did those numbers come from?

BTW, I hate the idea. LOL
Click to expand...



Easier to understand and clears up confusion such as upsizing circuits for voltage drop.

I did increase the EGC size for a few cases, I think the impedance is to high at time- like a 200amp OCPD being opened with #6- but that is open for debate.
 
Submit a proposal with that substantiation.

Roger
 
IMO it's a great idea just replace that dumb Table 250.122 and get rid of 250.122(B). I believe that Don has been saying this for years.
 
roger said:
Well that's the substantiation you used when you answered Dennis.

Roger
Click to expand...

Going into reactance, resistance and suseptance, average circuit runs and typical breaker pickup curves would take more effort to type out and make the thread more confusing. I know Dennis is smart, but, I want to save everyone the long list of numbers.
 
mbrooke said:
Going into reactance, resistance and suseptance, average circuit runs and typical breaker pickup curves would take more effort to type out and make the thread more confusing. I know Dennis is smart, but, I want to save everyone the long list of numbers.
Click to expand...

So make the proposal and use that for your substantiation.

Roger
 
mbrooke said:
I might, but I want to get your thoughts/ideas/votes before I do.
Click to expand...

If you have scientifically analyzed fault clearing and find the existing method flawed and have a better one, I don't see why it shouldn't be accepted.

The other option is go the route of a lot of these recent changes that happened and just say it seems like a good idea and don't give any evidence:rant:
 
electrofelon said:
If you have scientifically analyzed fault clearing and find the existing method flawed and have a better one, I don't see why it shouldn't be accepted.

The other option is go the route of a lot of these recent changes that happened and just say it seems like a good idea and don't give any evidence:rant:
Click to expand...

Well I'm not Eaton, so I will have to use route #1.
 
Problem is even if you run conductors per current requirements, you still get different fault current levels and clearing times on OCPD's depending on length, upstream conductors and source impedance. There is no one size fits all method that won't have undesired results in certain situations. I think a one size fits all is a good basic requirement though and let designers decide if they want to exceed that requirement in specific situations.
 
kwired said:
Problem is even if you run conductors per current requirements, you still get different fault current levels and clearing times on OCPD's depending on length, upstream conductors and source impedance. There is no one size fits all method that won't have undesired results in certain situations. I think a one size fits all is a good basic requirement though and let designers decide if they want to exceed that requirement in specific situations.
Click to expand...

Well said.

FWIW, in Canada code requires that in some cases EGCs be larger then our table, in others it lets them be smaller.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top