Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 79

Thread: Can't find actual codes against this

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    59,017
    Quote Originally Posted by woody75 View Post
    If i had done it, i would either have removed the extra 5 wires and had a single 5 wire network from the panel to the first JB, or i would have pulled out the 3 duplicate hots and pulled in a 3rd neutral so that each final circuit had its own grounded conductor. I was just hoping to find an actual code to support this. To me, it is a much neater, cleaner, more professional method than to have so many duplicate purpose wires in a single conduit, especially when the panel is at the origin of that conduit.
    And that there is likely why they did not have you do it. It was cheaper to do it messy.

    I salute your standards but the person paying for the work gets to decide how neat they want it. (Within the rules of course)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by woody75 View Post
    If i had done it, i would either have removed the extra 5 wires and had a single 5 wire network from the panel to the first JB, or i would have pulled out the 3 duplicate hots and pulled in a 3rd neutral so that each final circuit had its own grounded conductor. I was just hoping to find an actual code to support this. To me, it is a much neater, cleaner, more professional method than to have so many duplicate purpose wires in a single conduit, especially when the panel is at the origin of that conduit.
    And even at that, you probably wouldn't have been satisfied with the color scheme not matching up past the 1st J-Box, and, no need to go loading up the neutral by pulling separate neutrals for each circuit.

    There are advantages to MWBC's.

    Try to look at the bright side.
    If more circuits need to be added back in the future, and they ask you, at least You'll know where to look and the majority of the wire will still be in place for you to be able to do so.

    JAP>

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,472
    Quote Originally Posted by woody75 View Post
    Yes, they were all in the same conduit from the panel to the first JB in the field. Two 5 wire networks with 3 hots, a neut and a ground each.

    Now after the reconfiguration, there are still 10 wires from the panel to the first JB, 4 of them (2 blacks, 1 red, 1 blue) are all the same circuit spliced in the breaker panel to the same breaker and in the same conduit to the first JB. 2 neutrals from the panel in the same conduit to the first JB where they are each spliced and branched off to their respective outlets. Grounds match the neuts.
    The whole problem you see would go away if you landed former 1,3,5,7 group to breaker No. 7. You have a MWBC as it is now, but the problem is the handle tie requirement cannot be fulfilled with circuits in spaces 1,9,11. Change it to 7, 9, and 11... or 1, 3 (formerly 9), and 5 (formerly 11) and you or they are good to go...

    I'll never get there. No matter where I go, I'm always here.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Smart $ View Post
    The whole problem you see would go away if you landed former 1,3,5,7 group to breaker No. 7. You have a MWBC as it is now, but the problem is the handle tie requirement cannot be fulfilled with circuits in spaces 1,9,11. Change it to 7, 9, and 11... or 1, 3 (formerly 9), and 5 (formerly 11) and you or they are good to go...

    Let me clarify that. You have full boat which some of it is an MWBC and some is a 2-wire (though it uses more than two wires). The violation is of the handle tie requirement and cannot be met until you get the A-B-C breakers next to each other... and install a handle tie on the A-B-C breakers.
    I'll never get there. No matter where I go, I'm always here.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by Smart $ View Post
    Let me clarify that. You have full boat which some of it is an MWBC and some is a 2-wire (though it uses more than two wires). The violation is of the handle tie requirement and cannot be met until you get the A-B-C breakers next to each other... and install a handle tie on the A-B-C breakers.
    Or get the neutral for old circuit 7 Which is now circuit 1 off of 9and 11's neutral and put it on new circuit 1's neutral and leave it as a 2wire circuit where no handle tie is needed for the 1p breaker in circuit 1 and leave 9and 11 as a MWBC with a handle tie.

    JAP>

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,472
    Quote Originally Posted by jap View Post
    Or get the neutral for old circuit 7 Which is now circuit 1 off of 9and 11's neutral and put it on new circuit 1's neutral and leave it as a 2wire circuit where no handle tie is needed for the 1p breaker in circuit 1 and leave 9and 11 as a MWBC with a handle tie.
    Yes, another possibility.
    I'll never get there. No matter where I go, I'm always here.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    7,326
    Wow. Dueling moderators.
    Just goes to show you how hard the code can be to understand
    Moderator-Washington State
    Ancora Imparo

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,472
    Anyway, that covers the physics aspect of compliance. Next is the administrative part, i.e. circuit identification. From what I gleaned, line identification is accomplished by way of conductor insulation color. The facility can throw that out the window now... figuratively speaking, of course .

    Worse yet is if the facility has more than one nominal voltage system [210.5(C)(1)].
    I'll never get there. No matter where I go, I'm always here.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,314
    Quote Originally Posted by Smart $ View Post
    Anyway, that covers the physics aspect of compliance. Next is the administrative part, i.e. circuit identification. From what I gleaned, line identification is accomplished by way of conductor insulation color. The facility can throw that out the window now... figuratively speaking, of course .

    Worse yet is if the facility has more than one nominal voltage system [210.5(C)(1)].
    One of the plants I work in uses black for all 480v and red for all 120v.
    Lots of wire numbering but less inventory on wire colors.

    JAP>

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Springfield, MA, USA
    Posts
    2,806
    I agree, if the field wiring was correct and compliant as 2 separate MWBCs (1,3,5 and 7,9,11) then there is no reason to change the field wiring in order to combine the circuits.

    Rather than supplying all of the original 1,3,5,7 conductors from breaker 1, I would have supplied 1 and 7 from breaker 7...3 and 9 from breaker 9, and 5 and 11 from breaker 11.

    This would free up the same number of breakers, keep loads distributed on the supply phases and on the field neutrals, keep the facility color code intact, and possibly save a wirenut

    -Jon


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •