Files
zmVault/conductor-sizing.md
T
2025-10-24 15:30:51 -04:00

238 lines
5.5 KiB
Markdown

---
id:
aliases: []
tags:
- destiny/fleeting
- status/incomplete
- topic/construction/electrical
- type/encyclopedia
- authorship/original
title: Conductor Sizing
---
# Conductor Sizing
Conductors are sized to be suitable for the load,
overcurrent protection is sized to protect the conductors.
## "The 80% Rule"
"The 80% Rule" is a rule of thumb
referring to a common convention of several articles
including:
* [[nfpa-70_210_branch-circuits#210.19(A)(1) General.]]
* [[nfpa-70_215_feeders#215.2(A)(1) General.]]
* [[nfpa-70_430_motors#430.22 Single Motor.]]
which paraphrased states:
> ... the minimum conductor size shall have an ampacity
> not less than the noncontinuous load
> plus 125 percent of the continuous load
When the rule is repeated,
the noncontinuous load is ignored
and it is stated that conductors are suitable
for 80% their listed rating,
since 80% is the reciprocal of 125%.
## Branch Circuits
### Receptacle Branch
> [!important]
> There is no maximum number of receptacles per circuit _in any occupancy_.
It is a common misconception that the limit
can be calculated with a formula like
$$
\frac{1.25(180VA)}{120V} = 1.875A, \quad \frac{20A}{1.875A} = 10.\bar{6}
$$
but the 180VA per yoke load specified in
[[nfpa-70_220_load-calculations#220.14(I) Receptacle Outlets.|220.14(I)]]
is specifically for calculating service and feeder sizing.
Per [[nfpa-70_210_branch-circuits#210.19(A)(1) General.|210.19(A)(1)]]
a receptacle branch circuit's load
is the load of the equipment intended to be served by it.
Where general-use receptacles are provided
without specific equipment in mind,
circuits will be engineered at the minimum load.
If a receptacle circuit's load is a whole multiple of 180VA
there's a good chance that's the number of devices,
or at least was at some point in the design.
## Feeders
> [!cite] NEC Article 250 (emphasis added)
> ### 250.122 Size of Equipment Grounding Conductors
> #### (A) General.
> Copper, aluminum, or copper-clad aluminum
> equipment grounding conductors of the wire type
> shall not be smaller than shown in Table 250.122,
> but in no case shall they be required to be larger
> than the circuit conductors supplying the equipment...
Apparently in the 2026 NEC First Draft Meetings,
Code Making Panel 5 clarified that the equipment grounding conductor (EGC)
never needs to be larger than the largest ungrounded conductor in any raceway
when installed in parallel.
I can not find a source to verify this.
Statements from other reputable sources including Mike Holt
are in contradiction to this idea.
***
Given a minimum ampacity, find all valid configurations.
> [!cite] NEC Article 310 (emphasis added)
> #### 310.10(H) Conductors in Parallel.
> ##### (1) General.
> Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper conductors,
> for each phase, polarity, neutral, or grounded circuit
> shall be permitted to be connected in parallel
> (electrically joined at both ends)
> _only in sizes 1/0 AWG and larger_
> where installed in accordance with 310.10(H)(2) through (H)(6).
Rank by total cost of install.
### Complexity to Ignore
#### Conductor Material
Tinned copper and copper-clad aluminum conductors
can be assumed out of scope.
### Complexity to Respect
#### Equipment Grounding Conductor Material
Wire and EGC conductors are usually assumed to match,
but it is sometimes necessary to use a copper EGC with aluminum wires,
either for spec requirements or conduit fill considerations.
## Voltage Drop
> [!info] Ohm's Law
>
> $$
> V = I \times R, \quad R = \frac{V}{I}, \quad I = \frac{V}{R}
> $$
### Step 1: Effective Impedance $Z$
$$
Z = R \cos(\theta) + X \sin(\theta)
$$
where
* $Z$ = Effective impedance
* $R$ = AC resistance
* $X$ = Reactance
* $\theta$ = Power factor angle = $\arccos(PF)$
#### Parallel Runs
The equivalent resistance of parallel resistances is given by
$$
\frac{1}{R_{\text{eq}}} = \frac{1}{R_1} + \frac{1}{R_2} + \frac{1}{R_3} + \dots + \frac{1}{R_n}
$$
For $n$ parallel resistances of value $R$
$$
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{R_{\text{eq}}} &= n \times \left(\frac{1}{R}\right) \\
&= \frac{n}{R} \\
R_{\text{eq}} &= \frac{R}{n}
\end{align*}
$$
### Step 2: Voltage Drop
> [!important]
> This section assumes a 3-phase
> 208Y/120V or 480Y/277V voltage system
> [!info] 3-Phase Voltage
>
> $$
> V_{LL} = \sqrt{3} \times V_{LN}, \quad V_{LN} = \frac{V_{LL}}{\sqrt{3}}
> $$
3% allowable voltage drop for a 120V line-to-neutral load:
$$
\text{Max} \Delta V = 0.03 \times 120 \text{V}_{LN} = 3.6 \text{V}_{LN}
$$
3% allowable voltage drop for a 208V line-to-line load:
$$
\text{Max} \Delta V = 0.03 \times 208 \text{V}_{LL} = 6.24 \text{V}_{LL}
$$
#### Line to Neutral Loads
$$
\Delta V_{LN} = I \times Z \times 2L
$$
#### Line to Line Loads
$$
\Delta V_{LL} = \sqrt{3} \times \left( I \times Z \times 2L \right)
$$
#### 3-Phase Loads
$$
\Delta V_{3\phi} = \sqrt{3} \times \left( I \times Z \times L \right)
$$
where
* $\Delta V$ = Voltage drop in volts ($V$)
* $I$ = Current in amperes ($A$)
* $L$ = Length of wire one way in feet ($\text{ft}$)
> [!important]
> "Current" is not the OCPD rating,
> but the actual load.
***
It is often more useful to know the maximum length
a certain wiring configuration is suitable for.
$$
L = \frac{ \Delta V }{ I \times M } \times \frac{1}{Z}
$$
## Transformers
$$
I = \frac{S}{ \sqrt{3} \times V \times E }
$$
* $I$ = nameplate current rating
* $S$ = nameplate kVA rating
* $V$ = feeder voltage
* $E$ = efficiency
## Motors
1 electric horsepower = 746 watts
full-load current (FLC) / full-load amperes (FLA)
minimum circuit ampacity (MCA)
$$
\text{MCA} = 1.25 \times \text{FLC}
$$