Discuss Twin and Earth CPC in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

Welcome to ElectriciansForums.net - The American Electrical Advice Forum
Head straight to the main forums to chat by click here:   American Electrical Advice Forum

Cookie

-
Reaction score
117
IEC 60364-5-54 states that phase conductors 16mm2 and smaller require a CPC of the same size, over 16 to 35mm2 a 16mm2 CPC and over 35mm2 a half size CPC is required.

My questions is why am I seeing catalogs with harmonized twin and earth with reduced size CPCs over 2.5mm2? And why doesn't the half size rule kick in when wire is over 4mm2 instead of 16mm2?
 
A cpc can be either sized to table 54.7 in bs7671 or calculated using the adiabatic equation. An equal sized cpc to the line conductors is rarely required, especially when current limiting ocpd’s such circuit breakers and fuses are used.
I believe in Ireland, the twin and cpc cables have equal sized conductors as is now required by their regulations.
Only 1mm2 twin and earth has the same sized cpc, 1.5 has a 1mm cpc, 2.5 a 1.5 mm cpc, 4mm a 1.5mm cpc, 6mm a 2.5mm cpc ,10mm a 4mm cpc and 16mm a 6mm cpc.
 
Last edited:
Interesting way of doing it. Why do some countries use a full size CPC others go one or two sizes smaller?
 
Interesting way of doing it. Why do some countries use a full size CPC others go one or two sizes smaller?
Different electricity, I think.

As soon as all our Chinese nukes are online we will have to revisit our CPC requirements and bring them in line with Chinese regs, I think.
 
Interesting way of doing it. Why do some countries use a full size CPC others go one or two sizes smaller?
The only reason I can think is cost to manufacture the cable, as the regulations don’t bound you to use a cpc the same size, it’s not required to produce twin and cpc cables that have conductors all the same size.
 
I believe in Ireland, the twin and cpc cables have equal sized conductors as is now required by their regulations.
5th September 2017 was the cut-off date for the old-style T&E. (It should be noted that there weren't identical cpc sizes to British Standard cable before that, however. As an example 16mm^2 T&E had to have a 10mm^2 (rather than 6mm^2) cpc; 10mm^2 had a 6mm^2 (not 4mm^2) cpc etc.)
 
Interesting way of doing it. Why do some countries use a full size CPC others go one or two sizes smaller?

Because some countries like to waste the rapidly dwindling natural resources of this planet.
Or maybe they just don't trust the people installing the cables to understand the relatively simple calculations required.
 
I think the only types of general light duty installation cable that have a bare CPC are UK T+E and USA NM and their derivatives, of which the NM has equal CPC but T+E CPC is reduced above 1.0mm². I think I have seen a couple of types of reduced, bare CPC T+E of indeterminate origin in North Africa with an approximation to US colours, but it might have been equal.

Australian TPS, Russian ВВГ-Пнг and its derivatives, and all the common European circular cables like NYM-J and KH05-VV, and other kinds of flat cable such as NYIF share with the Irish cable the equal-sized, insulated CPC.

There are probably many historical factors that led to the present-day choice of round vs. flat, bare vs. insulated, equal vs. reduced CPC; just as there are with choices of voltage, frequency, plug designs etc. So I don't think it's as clearcut as one country having a 'better' cable specification than another through engineering design alone.
 
US NM-B has a full size CPC for 2.08mm2, 3.31mm2 and 5.26mm2 live and neutral.


Here is the Canadian version, reduced size CPC for 12 and 10 gauge live and neutral:

https://www.mysouthwire.com/medias/...2JiNDI0NDZkYTc0MzM1MDUwNzc4Y2M2ZjgwOGQ3M2JkNg

The thing is the IEC-60364 seems to be most conservative in that they advocate for a full size CPC all the way up to 16mm2... something that I don't think any country does except those that use 60364 without amending it.
 
We choose cost over safety we then have to waste time doing doing direct Zs tests etc to make sure the CPC is satisfactory.

There is a youtube video about adiabatic equation, think it's Italian.
 
The adiabatic equation is scary to be honest... I thought 2.08mm2 on a 40 amp breaker wad bad :oops: The IEC seems to insinuate its better for TT earthing. And I could understand that, especially since TT earthing tends to be used in developing countries where cost is critical.

I'm trying to find the k factor for AWG wire sizes just so I can compare our CPCs.
 
We choose cost over safety we then have to waste time doing doing direct Zs tests etc to make sure the CPC is satisfactory.

There is a youtube video about adiabatic equation, think it's Italian.

Why do you think Zs testing is a waste of time?
Whatever size CPC you install it is still an essential test to confirm the requirements of ADS have been met.
 
Why do you think Zs testing is a waste of time?
Whatever size CPC you install it is still an essential test to confirm the requirements of ADS have been met.
Waste time was a bit harsh but the money we save will eventually be lost to testing, where as if we used the same size CPC we would only need to test PEFC/Ze at origin like we do PSCC.
 
The adiabatic equation is scary to be honest... I thought 2.08mm2 on a 40 amp breaker wad bad :oops: The IEC seems to insinuate its better for TT earthing. And I could understand that, especially since TT earthing tends to be used in developing countries where cost is critical.

I'm trying to find the k factor for AWG wire sizes just so I can compare our CPCs.
Cookie I’ll say this up to 30 amps the neutral and ground has to be the same size, after that you can derate the ground only. As far as the neutral goes after 200 amps the you can derate the neutral 70% of the ungrounded conductors. I just can’t understand why we don’t keep the neutral the same size as the ungrounded conductors which would go a long way as far as harmonics are considered. I myself do not derate neutrals because of the manufacturing plants that I work in have all kinds of problems with VFD’s, electronic ballasts, etc.
 
Cookie I’ll say this up to 30 amps the neutral and ground has to be the same size, after that you can derate the ground only. As far as the neutral goes after 200 amps the you can derate the neutral 70% of the ungrounded conductors. I just can’t understand why we don’t keep the neutral the same size as the ungrounded conductors which would go a long way as far as harmonics are considered. I myself do not derate neutrals because of the manufacturing plants that I work in have all kinds of problems with VFD’s, electronic ballasts, etc.

Yup and yup.

Though if you have to upsize the phase conductors for voltage drop you must also do so with the EGC.
 
Waste time was a bit harsh but the money we save will eventually be lost to testing, where as if we used the same size CPC we would only need to test PEFC/Ze at origin like we do PSCC.
Testing is not just confirming the calculations you know...
[automerge]1591774290[/automerge]
I'm trying to find the k factor for AWG wire sizes just so I can compare our CPCs.
The k-factor is about the material (copper, aluminium, steel) and acceptable temperature rise (so typically a few small variariation based on PVC, XLPE, etc). The units might vary, but so long as you work things out in one consistent standard (e.g. mm2) and then convert back in to equivalent AWG it is fine.

Actually that is a very good reason why SWG and AWG as cable sizing are pants - they have no direct usable value for calculation or comparison of size!
[automerge]1591776985[/automerge]
As others have said, the size is purely down to regulations.

The CPC does not normally carry current so it only has to be big enough for fault clearing, but the historical and regional approach to sizing that may have varied massively depending on the type of circuit protection device and the assumed skill levels of those designing / installing the circuits.

In the UK at least you always had to size the OCPD for the thinnest of cables on the circuit for normal overload protection, so immediately under fault conditions (which a current to the CPC is) you would be looking at rapid disconnection and so the I2t ought to be low enough for a reduced-size CPC. But you also have to consider the mechanical aspect of CPC strength, termination and corrosion, etc, which is (I think) the reason for various lower limits on CPC size that you see in the BS regs.

In other regions they may have had different rules on circuit OCPD selection, or less rigorous guidance for installed length, etc, that resulted in a mandate for the same CPC size to manage the fault-clearing safely.
 
Last edited:
New posts

Reply to Twin and Earth CPC in the Electrical Forum area at ElectriciansForums.net

OFFICIAL SPONSORS

Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Electrician Courses Green Electrical Goods PCB Way Electrical Goods - Electrical Tools - Brand Names Pushfit Wire Connectors Electric Underfloor Heating Electrician Courses
These Official Forum Sponsors May Provide Discounts to Regular Forum Members - If you would like to sponsor us then CLICK HERE and post a thread with who you are, and we'll send you some stats etc

Electrical Forum

Welcome to the Electrical Forum at ElectriciansForums.net. The friendliest electrical forum online. General electrical questions and answers can be found in the electrical forum.
This website was designed, optimised and is hosted by Untold Media. Operating under the name Untold Media since 2001.
Back
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock