When did Table 310.16 get renumbered?

Status
Not open for further replies.

charlie b

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Lockport, IL
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
I am reviewing a design package that refers to Table 310.16. The only two editions I have at work are 2017 and 2014, and the change to Table 310.15(B)(16) happened earlier than that. I want to chide the designer for being out of date, and would like to know the date. TIA.
 
Which time?



In the original 1897, ampacities were listed in a table titled Rule 16, titled "Table of Carrying Capacity of Wires". 14, 12 and 10 had ampacities of 12, 17 and 24 for rubber insulation, 16, 23, and 32 for other insulations (those were your only two choices then!).

In the 1911 NEC it was called Rule 18 and was re-titled as "Allowable Carrying Capacities of Conductors."

In 1920, it became Table 1 of Rule 18.

In 1923, it was Table I to Rule 610. This was the first of three major renumberings of the NEC

In 1930 NEC, it was relocated as Table 1 of Rule 618.

In 1937, it was moved to the back of the book and became Table 1, Chapter 9. This was the second of three major renumberings of the NEC

In 1940 Table 1 was moved further back to Chapter 10.

In '59 it was relocated again and became Table 310-12. This was the third of three major renumberings of the NEC.

In '65, the Table was renumbered 310-15.

In 1978, it was moved to T310-16.

In 2011, it was renumbered to 310.15(B)(16).

In the 2020, it went back to T310.16.



Now you know.
 
You (Dennis) have 2 posts right next to each other... and your icon picture changes 'in step.' Just thought you'd like to know.
 
Before you chide them make sure they aren't using the 2020 as the tables are now back to 310.16
Thank you. I was not aware of that. The project is based on the 2017 edition. The voltage drop calculation refers to the 2014 Table 310.16.
 
WHY???? :slaphead:

I guess because everyone complained about it enough they decided to go back to the easier section to remember. I always got the change wrong. I couldn't remember if it was 310.15(B16).. or 310.16(B15)....LOL Back to 310.16 is good for me.
 
I always liked 310.16, used that for decades but they changed it for 9 years and then changed it back these guys really starting to annoy me. They keep making minute changes that are unnecessary, this stuff is complicated enough. :rant:
 
Well, here's another.. in 2005 the table for conductor amps and insulation was T310.13 then in 2008 it became 310.13(A) then it went to 310.104(A) for a few cycles. Now in 2020 the table is located at 310.4(A)

There are a lot of new sections and rewording in article 310
 
I guess because everyone complained about it enough they decided to go back to the easier section to remember. I always got the change wrong. I couldn't remember if it was 310.15(B16).. or 310.16(B15)....LOL Back to 310.16 is good for me.

I doubt the National Forest Prevention Agency cares about complaints.
 
We have it easy. :happyyes: I spent a couple years working in the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering field. The international and US Coast Guard regulations that cover shipbuilding are periodically revised. Often the new edition will have completely revised the article numbering scheme. Can you imagine, for example, if the ampacity table was 310.16 one NEC cycle, and 206.B.4 the next cycle? :blink:
 
I always liked 310.16, used that for decades but they changed it for 9 years and then changed it back these guys really starting to annoy me. They keep making minute changes that are unnecessary, this stuff is complicated enough. :rant:

Software writers are the worst for this. How many times have you been used to dealing with an application, and then you "update" it only to find that operations have been moved around to different menus for no apparent reason other than to keep those guys employed? Grrrrr...

End rant, back to topic.
 
We have it easy. :happyyes: I spent a couple years working in the Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering field. The international and US Coast Guard regulations that cover shipbuilding are periodically revised. Often the new edition will have completely revised the article numbering scheme. Can you imagine, for example, if the ampacity table was 310.16 one NEC cycle, and 206.B.4 the next cycle? :blink:

See post 4............
 
I always liked 310.16, used that for decades but they changed it for 9 years and then changed it back these guys really starting to annoy me. They keep making minute changes that are unnecessary, this stuff is complicated enough. :rant:
I'm with you 100% !!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top