Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: 2008 NEC Article 700.9(D)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1

    2008 NEC Article 700.9(D)

    Question has come up on a project in regards to any requirements for 'branch circuits' to be protected in the same manner which the article requires 'feeder-circuit wire' to be protected. The following is a deduction for not protecting the branch circuits in the same manner as the feeder-circuit and the feeder circuit equipment:

    1. Article 700.9(D)(1),specifically states feeder-circuit wiring, with no mention of branch circuitwiring. Article 708.10 of the COPS article, which is not applicable to this project, specifically notes Feeder and Branch Circuit Wiring, specifically708.10(D) for branch circuits. This project's applicable section does not include the branch circuit wiring portion.

    2. Article 100 definesboth 'Feeder' and 'Branch Circuit', with separate definitions, defining each individually, and not the same.

    3. Article 700.9(D)(2)references feeder circuit equipment, for feeder circuits, which includes, transfer switches, transfromers, and panels, thus further defining feeder circuit wiring as the wiring between these types of equipment. This section does not list branch circuit outlets/loads, nor the wiring between these loads and the panel, or per Article 100, branch circuits.

    4. Emergency System Circuits for Lighting and Power are specifically referenced as Branch circuits including Articles 700.15, 700.16, 700.17, and 700.18, and these do not mention any branch circuit wiring requirements or to comply with Article 700.9.


    Is it a requirement by the article to protect the branch circuits?

    thanks for any of your thoughts on this....


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Wa
    Posts
    492
    I believe there is but can not think of it right now off hand-I think it is in the fire or building codes stating that emerg power has to have a 90 or 120 minute rating, just can't remember for sure-

    Aside from that, it just seems silly to protect the feeders only to have the branch circuits burn up.
    RichB N7NEC

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    60,020
    Quote Originally Posted by RichB View Post
    Aside from that, it just seems silly to protect the feeders only to have the branch circuits burn up.
    But that is the deal with article 700 systems.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tacoma, Wa
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by iwire View Post
    But that is the deal with article 700 systems.
    I agree--I have always said the further into the code you go--beyond 300-- the weirder things get!

    I think the answer is in the IBC that says it needs to be protected--Just can't remember for sure and don't have access to my reference material for the next week

    Hopefully someone else does and can give you the correct info for certain.
    RichB N7NEC

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    60,020
    Quote Originally Posted by RichB View Post
    I agree--I have always said the further into the code you go--beyond 300-- the weirder things get!

    I think the answer is in the IBC that says it needs to be protected--Just can't remember for sure and don't have access to my reference material for the next week

    Hopefully someone else does and can give you the correct info for certain.
    I work with and install article 700 systems often, the branch circuits do not have to be protected.

Posting Permissions

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