There's No Grounding Conductor in Disconnect Switch and Circuit Breaker Enclosure

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tainted said:
It's debatable. I'm considering to just put a note for contractor to verify ground continuity... Kinda feel iffy about using metal raceway as an ECG because , rarely see anybody do it, and I rarely see it.....
Click to expand...
It's not debatable. There are thousands of miles of metal conduit in service as the sole EGC and it is performing fine. I bet you rarely see Multi Wire Branch Circuits as well.
 
ActionDave said:
It's not debatable. There are thousands of miles of metal conduit in service as the sole EGC and it is performing fine. I bet you rarely see Multi Wire Branch Circuits as well.
Click to expand...
lol, ok I will keep the feeders and conduit the way it is since I got a little bit of reassurance... you are correct I rarely see multi-wire branch circuits. I've seen some, usually requires the breakers to be interlocked. I guess there's the redundancy of not having neutrals shared?
 
Reason we don't use EMT as EGC: unreliable continuity. Copper wire provides redundancy.

Reason we don't use MWBCs anymore: harmonic currents due to proliferation of switching power supplies.

Some people are just resistant to new ways. I'm sure when I'm an old timer I'll be the same way.

Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk
 
MWBC feel out of favor when the NEC added the simultaneous disconnect rule in '08. It was a major dumbing down of the electrical trade and one of the worst code changes ever just because a bunch of handymen or ill trained electricians didn't understand how to properly work on them. There was never a real world problem with harmonic currents on neutrals and there isn't now. All those old MWBC are still in service and powering up electronic lights, computers with switch mode power supplies without a problem.

And yes, most people are resistant to new way, but I'm not.
 
Question. Suppose a conductor will be used as an EGC, then does that mean if there’s a fault somewhere, the fault current will go to the EGC and the raceway at the same time? Wouldn’t that be parallel paths?
 
Tainted said:
Question. Suppose a conductor will be used as an ECG, then does that mean if there’s a fault somewhere, the fault current will go to the ECG and the raceway at the same time? Wouldn’t that be parallel paths?
Click to expand...
Yes it would. The current would be inversely proportional to the impedance in each conductor.

Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk
 
ActionDave said:
MWBC feel out of favor when the NEC added the simultaneous disconnect rule in '08. It was a major dumbing down of the electrical trade and one of the worst code changes ever just because a bunch of handymen or ill trained electricians didn't understand how to properly work on them. There was never a real world problem with harmonic currents on neutrals and there isn't now. All those old MWBC are still in service and powering up electronic lights, computers with switch mode power supplies without a problem.

And yes, most people are resistant to new way, but I'm not.
Click to expand...
All changes to best practices and the NEC are due to real world problems. Do you think engineers just sit down with a pen and paper and think of things to change our life? Everything has and always will be reactionary.

And many (well trained). Electricians have been seriously injured by MWBCs not on a common trip mechanism. Why fight things they improve safety? It's ridiculous my friend. What does a handle tie cost? My god.

Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk
 
DrSparks said:
Yes it would. The current would be inversely proportional to the impedance in each conductor.

Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
In that case, I would then only see the EGC wire be there as a supplementary backup ground
 
Tainted said:
In that case, I would then only see the EGC wire be there as a supplementary backup ground
Click to expand...
Sure, you could put it that way. The conductivity of 1 foot of 2" galvanized steel EMT is most certainly greater than a #8 copper wire.

Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk
 
DrSparks said:
Sure, you could put it that way. The conductivity of 1 foot of 2" galvanized steel EMT is most certainly greater than a #8 copper wire.

Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Wait… isn’t #8 too small for the 175A breaker? #8 is only up to 100A? Do you mean #6?
 
Tainted said:
It's debatable. I'm considering to just put a note for contractor to verify ground continuity... Kinda feel iffy about using metal raceway as an ECG because , rarely see anybody do it, and I rarely see it.

I think the pipe is 2" with THWN 3/0 feeders.
Click to expand...
We do it all of the time up to 4" EMT. If the customer isn't paying for wire type EGC's they don't get one for free in the EMT. Personally I would stop worrying about it. If it passed inspection (meaning that it was installed in a code compliant manner) there is nothing else to be done.
 
DrSparks said:
I agree if it's wrench tight threaded rigid conduit. I don't consider EMT with setscrew connectors a viable EGC. Just from my own experience in years of factory work.

Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Interesting. I have found the opposite, that a conduit system is a much more reliable EGC. I just don't trust the wire EGC to be made up correctly. All the time I see poor wire nut connections, improper and poor connections to enclosures, connections skipped because the box is mounted on concrete, etc.
 
DrSparks said:
I take it you disagree with that. Care to elaborate?

Sent from my BE2028 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I dont at all agree that changes in the NEC and the modern proclivity towards running wire EGC's are based on real world problems. Look at all the absurd crap in article 250 that has been there for half a century or more, most of the recent GFCI expansions, AFCI's, the surge protector requirement, no more MLO's, handle ties on MWBC's.....the list goes on. Pretty much no data or history of problems for this stuff.
 
electrofelon said:
I dont at all agree that changes in the NEC and the modern proclivity towards running wire EGC's are based on real world problems. Look at all the absurd crap in article 250 that has been there for half a century or more, most of the recent GFCI expansions, AFCI's, the surge protector requirement, no more MLO's, handle ties on MWBC's.....the list goes on. Pretty much no data or history of problems for this stuff.
Click to expand...
What are you referring to when mentioning ‘no more MLO?’ MLO panels are not allowed anymore?!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top