VFD feeder sizing ? 430.112 would be violated ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Davebones

Senior Member
( Mitsubishi FR-F840-03250-3-U6 VFD ) We have a test stand that they want to add this VFD to run two 75 hp motors on . Right now we have a 225 amp feed to the stand . The only loads would be the two 75 hp 480v motors ( 96 X 2 = 192 amps ) . I know that 430.122 calls for the VFD feed to be rated for 125% of the input rating . ( 125% X 260 = 325 amps ) . This is a R/D type stand that would only be ran for test purposes . Besides being a code violation are there any other issues running this with the existing 225 amp feed ?
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
I think you should look closely at what is actually required to be 125%. It only applies to the branch circuit feeding the drive. The feeder circuit feeding the cabinet containing the two drives is just a normal motor feeder and only subject to the limitations attached to motor feeders.
 

Jraef

Moderator, OTD
Staff member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
I think you should look closely at what is actually required to be 125%. It only applies to the branch circuit feeding the drive. The feeder circuit feeding the cabinet containing the two drives is just a normal motor feeder and only subject to the limitations attached to motor feeders.
I took it as that he has one 200HP VFD (as per the Mitsi part #), two75HP motors. If it were 2 separate VFDs in the cabinet, then yes, that's a good point. Feeder vs Branch.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
I took it as that he has one 200HP VFD (as per the Mitsi part #), two75HP motors. If it were 2 separate VFDs in the cabinet, then yes, that's a good point. Feeder vs Branch.

I don't recall I've ever seen anybody put two Motors that big on the same Drive. I guess there is no technical reason why you couldn't although I think you would have to have separate overload protection for both Motors.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I don't recall I've ever seen anybody put two Motors that big on the same Drive. I guess there is no technical reason why you couldn't although I think you would have to have separate overload protection for both Motors.
Yes you would need separate overload protection. Regardless of what code might say - modern day drives would protect themselves from overload.
 

drktmplr12

Senior Member
Location
South Florida
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
Yes you would need separate overload protection. Regardless of what code might say - modern day drives would protect themselves from overload.

How should the drive know how to protect from overload of one motor while two are connected?

When setting up a drive, you must configure the motor specs for the drive to use as a basis of integral overload protection. Overload trip curves are based on multiples of full load amps. If you enter 150 HP, an overload of one motor might go undetected.
 

Jraef

Moderator, OTD
Staff member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
How should the drive know how to protect from overload of one motor while two are connected?

When setting up a drive, you must configure the motor specs for the drive to use as a basis of integral overload protection. Overload trip curves are based on multiples of full load amps. If you enter 150 HP, an overload of one motor might go undetected.
I don't think that's what he meant. He said you would need separate OL protection and that is in the NEC as well.

The OP's issue is whether or not the VFD is OK with being fed by conductors that are not sized per the NEC rule on 125% of the VFD amp rating. Aside from it technically being a code violation, the issue stands as I previously said. The VFD could not care less what size conductors you feed it with, but it will not protect the line side conductors, that is the job of the branch OCPD feeding the drive input conductors.

From what I've determined, the issue on requiring the VFD feeder conductors to be sized for125% of the VFD amps, not the motor HP amps from table 430.152, is because throughout the industry, there are a lot of variations of what the input amps of the VFDs are.

What I've found that I think lead up to it is that in a few cases, there are VFDs designed by off-shore mfrs that are UL listed for HP sizes based on what the mfr tested them for. But because the original VFD design was for 380V motors and they didn't want to have to test too many different sizes, the amp rating of the VFD is higher than is necessary for a 480V system. This was especially true for several Japanese VFD suppliers back in the 90s. What I've seen happen in the field, and what I interpret the NEC was attempting to address in 2002 when this rule was added, is that after the VFD was installed, users read the output amp rating of the VFD and use it on a larger motor. But if the conductors feeding the VFD had been sized per the NEC chart for the originally intended HP, the input conductors ended up being too small. So by ensuring that the conductors feeding the VFD are sized for the VFD rated input amps, it doesn't matter what the end user connects to the load side. This scenario rarely exists any more, most VFD mfrs have optimized their product sizing, but it still makes sense in some cases which is what I believe they intend to try to cover.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
How should the drive know how to protect from overload of one motor while two are connected?

When setting up a drive, you must configure the motor specs for the drive to use as a basis of integral overload protection. Overload trip curves are based on multiples of full load amps. If you enter 150 HP, an overload of one motor might go undetected.
That is why I said you need separate overload protection - which is for the motors.

The drive probably won't let you set the motor overload protection any higher then the drive is rated for, but even if it did, the drive would still protect itself, at very least it will have internal thermal protection, which sometimes does trip if a cooling fan fails or something of that nature.
 

Jraef

Moderator, OTD
Staff member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
By the way, one of the Japanese drives I mentioned above as being the nexus of this issue? Mitsubishi... its been a while since I bought one so I'm not sure if that is still an issue, but I remember one project where I needed a 300HP drive and although the NEC table says (I think) 361A as the FLA, their drive product line at the time jumped from 250HP to 350 HP so the only drive they had that was listed for 300HP was rated at something like 420A input current, much higher than necessary for a 300HP motor.
 

drktmplr12

Senior Member
Location
South Florida
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
That is why I said you need separate overload protection - which is for the motors.

The drive probably won't let you set the motor overload protection any higher then the drive is rated for, but even if it did, the drive would still protect itself, at very least it will have internal thermal protection, which sometimes does trip if a cooling fan fails or something of that nature.

I definitely misread the previous post. :dunce: Agreed.

Thanks for the thought out responses Jraef and kwired!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top