Chris:
1: >From Article 100 (2020 NEC): Free Air (as applied to conductors). Open or ventilated environment that allows for heat dissipation and air flow around an installed conductor. (I did not find this definition in the 2017 Code.) 310.15(C)(1) Exception (b): Adjustment factors shall not apply to conductors in raceways having a length not exceeding 600 mm (24 in.) . The 310.15(C)(1) Exception (b) applies most specifically to more than three conductors in a conduit, but it makes a case that short sections of conduit are not treated the same as longer runs. It might be argued that 24 in. or less of nipple or a cable tray is a “ventilated environment”. 2: Manufactured assemblies are not regulated by the NEC. If the manufacturer recommends a specific wire gauge, and particularly if they provide that wire, then the case can be made that it is approved. I hope these interpretations help. William Miller Solar 17395 Oak Road, Atascadero, CA 93422 805-438-5600 www.millersolar.com CA Lic. 773985 *From:* RE-wrenches [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Chris Sparadeo via RE-wrenches *Sent:* Thursday, March 20, 2025 10:09 AM *To:* RE-wrenches *Cc:* Chris Sparadeo *Subject:* [RE-wrenches] Battery Conductors and the NEC Hey everyone, I’m looking for some clarification on conductor ampacity ratings as they relate to battery cables. My understanding is that the term ‘free air’ wasn’t actually defined in the NEC until 2020 and that conductors installed in a nipple, wire trough, conduit body, or enclosure don’t qualify as ‘free air.’ That said, I’ve noticed some battery manufacturers and installers seem to be applying Table 310.17 (free air) rather than 310.16 (raceway) when specifying conductor sizes—particularly for battery-to-inverter connections. For example, a battery manufacturer offers a 48Vdc LFP battery with 10kW continuous output, which would suggest needing a conductor rated for ~245A (safety factor included). However, they provide a wire trough for the battery to inverter connection and provide a 1/0 Cu battery cable. This seems undersized if 310.16 applies. Am I overthinking this, or are these configurations typically tested and listed accordingly? I see similar situations across multiple manufacturers, and while I don’t put too much trust in marketing images, I noticed SimpliPHI using a single 1-1/4” conduit from a stack of 6.6 batteries to a 15kW inverter, which also raises questions. Is there a code-compliant rationale I’m missing, or are manufacturers and installers misapplying Table 310.17? I spoke with one applications engineer that referenced table 310.17 as the “battery cable table”. I get the value of running free aired battery cables with regard to ampacity allowance, but I also see the value in protecting energized conductors in a raceway. Would love to hear your insights! Best, Chris Sparadeo C_802-369-4458
_______________________________________________ List sponsored by Redwood Alliance Pay optional member dues here: http://re-wrenches.org List Address: [email protected] Change listserver email address & settings: http://lists.re-wrenches.org/options.cgi/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org There are two list archives for searching. When one doesn't work, try the other: https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ http://lists.re-wrenches.org/pipermail/re-wrenches-re-wrenches.org List rules & etiquette: http://www.re-wrenches.org/etiquette.htm Check out or update participant bios: http://www.members.re-wrenches.org
