I share your sentiment with respect to the confusion caused by the necessity of “bouncing around”. We understand why, but in the field, it does result in errors. Bread crumbs is a great analogy.
It’s definitely worthy of discussion, and probably needs a multi faceted approach to increase compliance down at the installer level. The same situation applies to tap rules, multi sources, and SCCR/AIR compliance.
The compilation of statistics data with the details of the causes is vital to prioritizing efforts to improve. We have to know what specific areas will reduce mishaps and increase safety the most, to allocate resources.
The eng. plans are sometimes without enough detail, as they assume 450, 240, and 408 will be followed by the installer but it fails. Even inspectors miss it.
What is found in the field is proof, and the fixes should be prioritized by actual statistics of losses which represent the highest likelihood even if it’s lower severity.
Suggestion: 1. Leave the code book as-is... Code 2. Update the handbook blue sections with the "breadcrumbs" Example: the blue clarification language for 450 xfmr protection would direct people to sections regarding conductor protection and panelboard protection.
How many 3 phase 480v/208v 75KVA Transformers fed on the primary side by a 3-poll 90amp breaker, then from the scondary lugs nothing but 3 ought coppers straight to the lugs of a 200 amp 3 phase main lug panel board I have seen. Especially in retail stores settings, most inspectors don't catch it.
There’s not a way to blend the codes, from what I see, it’s the installers that are making the mistakes more than the engineers specifications being wrong.
Curious, this RUclips channel remains to identify the acronym IAEI as the International Association of Electrical Inspectors. Also, curious why the statement "The Electrical Enforcement Authority" remains.
Thank you for your videos all information is golden
I share your sentiment with respect to the confusion caused by the necessity of “bouncing around”. We understand why, but in the field, it does result in errors. Bread crumbs is a great analogy.
It’s definitely worthy of discussion, and probably needs a multi faceted approach to increase compliance down at the installer level. The same situation applies to tap rules, multi sources, and SCCR/AIR compliance.
The compilation of statistics data with the details of the causes is vital to prioritizing efforts to improve. We have to know what specific areas will reduce mishaps and increase safety the most, to allocate resources.
The eng. plans are sometimes without enough detail, as they assume 450, 240, and 408 will be followed by the installer but it fails. Even inspectors miss it.
What is found in the field is proof, and the fixes should be prioritized by actual statistics of losses which represent the highest likelihood even if it’s lower severity.
Suggestion:
1. Leave the code book as-is... Code
2. Update the handbook blue sections with the "breadcrumbs"
Example: the blue clarification language for 450 xfmr protection would direct people to sections regarding conductor protection and panelboard protection.
I agree with the other comments here, there’s too many lug fed panels off of secondaries, and even with feed-throughs, disasters waiting to happen.
How many 3 phase 480v/208v 75KVA Transformers fed on the primary side by a 3-poll 90amp breaker, then from the scondary lugs nothing but 3 ought coppers straight to the lugs of a 200 amp 3 phase main lug panel board I have seen. Especially in retail stores settings, most inspectors don't catch it.
There’s not a way to blend the codes, from what I see, it’s the installers that are making the mistakes more than the engineers specifications being wrong.
Curious, this RUclips channel remains to identify the acronym IAEI as the International Association of Electrical Inspectors. Also, curious why the statement "The Electrical Enforcement Authority" remains.