Grounding requirement in conduit

[alfredeneuman]

If the OP puts in a 30a ckt in his new conduit network, he runs a #10 egc for it and then it’s required all throughout the remainder of that home-runned conduit network. This then includes any other 15a and 20a ckts in this same conduit network vs not having to pull any egc in the first place?

No
The #10 ground wire would be ended where the 30 Amp circuit terminates.
A #14 or #12 would be required from that point on for any 15 or 20 amp circuits respectively, and would be spliced to the #10.

Edit: An exception to this would be if the 15 or 20 amp circuits for some reason had run #10 wire to them.

 

[sberry]

Think about this for a minute. A whole crew of eggheads figured this out, over several code cycles and even upsized it from a point after it was introduced. You figure all these people, millions of man hours of experience, 1000's of testing were simply ignorant until you come along to set a standard straight?
Half a dozen guys pretty well versed in it trying to make a point. What I learned in regards to this code was when there was something I didn't understand the problem was with me. There are still a couple issues with upsize for V drop especially when using a cable where the logic still isn't completely clear but I am waiting for it to come.
This exact spot isn't really cloudy though, it lists the size, no where does it say to read everything you can find for a day or 2 and then calculate and if you don't feel like it there is an exemption for that. Doesn't say calculate the trip speed and if you feel its ok then install it that way. Doesn't restrict us from using a bigger wire.
It lists the required size, you make an argument that the code is a minimum then you want to downsize the wire from that.

 

[mm08822]

No
The #10 ground wire would be ended where the 30 Amp circuit terminates.
A #14 or #12 would be required from that point on for any 15 or 20 amp circuits respectively, and would be spliced to the #10.

Edit: An exception to this would be if the 15 or 20 amp circuits for some reason had run #10 wire to them.

That makes sense. Once the circuits split off into different portions of the raceway the risk of the higher value circuit is eliminated from the lesser one.

 

[mm08822]

Think about this for a minute. A whole crew of eggheads figured this out, over several code cycles and even upsized it from a point after it was introduced. You figure all these people, millions of man hours of experience, 1000's of testing were simply ignorant until you come along to set a standard straight?
Half a dozen guys pretty well versed in it trying to make a point. What I learned in regards to this code was when there was something I didn't understand the problem was with me. There are still a couple issues with upsize for V drop especially when using a cable where the logic still isn't completely clear but I am waiting for it to come.
This exact spot isn't really cloudy though, it lists the size, no where does it say to read everything you can find for a day or 2 and then calculate and if you don't feel like it there is an exemption for that. Doesn't say calculate the trip speed and if you feel its ok then install it that way. Doesn't restrict us from using a bigger wire.
It lists the required size, you make an argument that the code is a minimum then you want to downsize the wire from that.

Hey that’s pretty good. You been given this reply several times. Must have been easy to find and copy/paste.

No, my point of confusion is the apparent contradiction of having a metallic raceway alone satisfy the requirement and then by adding any copper as an egc forces it to a value completely as if the raceway was not present.
I have read the same articles others have quoted on here several times and read my code book a few more times and I still see it as a contradiction. Even the FPN’s are written a little ambiguous. Makes perfect sense to me for nm raceways. If there is no faith in the metallic conduit path, then I would hope it be eliminated as a means and then it is straight forward – use the table always. I, personally want to know the reason why it is written like that. That’s my deal not yours.

Those few calculations were to demonstrate the intended functionality of the article still exists and trip times are virtually the same. Maybe you need a day or two for those calculations, but I was working and had limited time.

I never stated an egc could not be used or you couldn’t choose to upsize it beyond the table values. If that blows air up your skirt, go for it.

No, I am saying the metallic conduit alone satisfies the intent of the article and doing more is optional.

 

[sberry]

I don't need to calculate it at all.
The reason I basically said the same thing twice is that its obviously not clicking yet. Its nothing new, seen a lot of people come along and figure they discovered some stuff to outsmart the code.
Smart people are really harder than dipsticks, avg guys simply know they don't know and follow the instructions till it sinks in.

 

[sberry]

As hard as I tried never found a spot where I was right and the code was wrong.