IET logo
 
IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100
Topic Summary:
Created On: 02 October 2017 04:39 PM
Status: Read Only
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - synapse - 02 October 2017 04:39 PM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - AJJewsbury - 02 October 2017 05:07 PM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - weirdbeard - 02 October 2017 05:57 PM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - mapj1 - 02 October 2017 07:27 PM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - synapse - 05 October 2017 10:30 PM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - ArduinoXR - 06 October 2017 01:22 PM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - leckie - 06 October 2017 05:23 PM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - OlympusMons - 06 October 2017 07:37 PM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - Alcomax - 06 October 2017 08:45 PM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - leckie - 06 October 2017 09:07 PM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - AJJewsbury - 07 October 2017 08:21 AM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - OlympusMons - 07 October 2017 10:52 AM  
 Current Carrying Capacity for 90deg XLPE ref method 100   - AJJewsbury - 08 October 2017 09:49 AM  
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 06 October 2017 01:22 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ArduinoXR

Posts: 34
Joined: 16 August 2017

Originally posted by: synapse

many thanks for comments - following the table if it existed would demonstrate compliance. Given the amount of insulation stuffed in new homes using the 70deg table means oversizing cables.


Not a bad thing in my opinion. If the client isn't particularly cost sensitive there is nothing wrong with this.
 06 October 2017 05:23 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



leckie

Posts: 4329
Joined: 21 November 2008

It wouldn't make any difference if such a table existed. The cable may be rated at 90 degrees but as has already been pointed out, the terminations in anything T&E is likely to be connected to are not. so you have to calculate based on the values given for a 70 degree rated equivalent cable. So you should use the table for normal T&E. You still get the benefit of Low smoke and fume. You could take into consideration what Mike says regarding the ends being cooler that a particular section, but that would need some careful thought.

Regarding increasing cable sizes, well you if the increase is required by the calculation for the installation method then so be it. But it is often fairly simple to avoid this by careful routing and cable spacing. I for one am not a fan of trying to cram larger conductors into terminal. Mind you with the 18th looking into energy saving including IsqR losses of conductors, this might become the norm. I am already seeing specifications asking for spare capacity on cable sizes of about 30%.
Statistics

New here?


See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2017 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.

..