Sizing Feeders, Part 4

In Annex D3(a), the neutrals complicate feeder sizing because we cannot assume the load is evenly distributed. Let's see just how much more complicated this becomes.

After that first long paragraph, Annex D3(a) provides a summary of the loads. The first one listed is discharge lighting. This type of load has high nonlinear content, so there's substantial current flowing through the neutral. That means you must consider the neutral to be a current-carrying conductor.

Annex D3(a) references the adjustment factors listed in 310.15(B)(5)(c), and if you refer back to that summary of loads you see that the VA represented by lighting is the majority of the total load on that feeder.

So now you're not running a relatively small neutral conductor, you're running a current-carrying conductor. One way around this would be to use a local separately derived transformer system at each building. The larger conductor is easily a less expensive way to go. In this example, you have a cost-savings advantage.

In the high temperature area, the terminations don't limit the temperature rating of the conductor because they are located outside that area. The load is 177A, and if the terminations limited you to the 60°C column you'd be running 4/0. But you can use the 90°C column and run 2/0.

Discuss this Article 1

Jacobo (not verified)
on Feb 26, 2013

With respect to te neutral, I agree that it must be considered as a current-carrying conductor. Yes, but this is valid for the lighting circuit. Let's now analyze the impact of the third harmonic component on the feeder neutral conductor: Section 310.15(B)(5)(c) regarding nonlinear loads must be considered in order to evaluate if this nonlinear load represents a major portion of the total load, in which case, the neutral will be considered as a current-carrying conductor. The proportion of the lighting load with respect to the total load is 42A / 177A, i.e. 23.7%. Is this number to be considered a "major portion"?. Regretfully, the Code doesn't quantify (it should) how much is a "major portion". Common sense dictate that it should be greater than 50%, but logically, 23.7% doesn't represent a "major portion". So, in this case, the neutral should not be considered as a current-carrying conductor.

Beside the above analysis, I think that there is a confusion regarding the neutral load calculation. The lighting load is 11,600 VA comprised of electric-discharge luminaires connected at 277V.
On the one hand, D3(a) makes the ungrounded feeder calculations assuming a lighting load of 11,600 x 1.25 VA, which means that the equivalent current should be 17.5A This means that the 11,600 VA are connected to a 3-phase, 4-wire wye circuit with the load evenly distributed among the three phase conductors. This is congruent with the affirmation in D3(a) that the lighting circuit has nonlinear content (it’s to be noted that according to 310.15(B)(5)(c), only in a 3-pase, 4-wire wye circuit can the neutral conductor be considered a current-carrying conductor).
On the other hand, the feeder neutral calculation in D3(a) assumes that the lighting load is connected to a single phase, because it divides the 11,600 VA / 277 V. This contradicts the former affirmations in this example.

J. Mendelovici
Feb26,2013

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine ID
(optional)

White Papers
EC&M Learning Center
Webinars
EC&M TV
Apr. 15, 2013
video

The Westex Difference

Learn what sets Westex apart from other flame resistant fabric manufacturers....More

Newsletter Signup

Connect With Us