2 Seprate Conduit Runs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mstrlucky74

Senior Member
Location
NJ
Always curious about this. Would you guys actually run 2 separate conduits from the panels to the equipment a shown or one pipe with all three circuits to a box near the equipment then branch from there. What the determining factor as to which way it would be done? Thanks.
 

Attachments

  • Pages from 10115 - ELECTRICAL 7-14-17.pdf
    78.6 KB · Views: 1
P

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
I think it depends on whether the drawings as shown are a suggestion or a requirement. If just a suggestion, do whatever makes sense, considering all the factors involved. If a requirement, than run two conduits like the drawing shows.
 
M

mstrlucky74

Senior Member
Location
NJ
petersonra said:
I think it depends on whether the drawings as shown are a suggestion or a requirement. If just a suggestion, do whatever makes sense, considering all the factors involved. If a requirement, than run two conduits like the drawing shows.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I have the same equipment setup in another closet about 150' away going to the same LP3B-LMC panel. I ask my self why would you runs conduit al the way. Wouldn't it make sense to run MC from a point near the panel to a point near the equipment if you have hung/accessible ceilings.
 
infinity

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Unless the drawing is incorrect it looks like they're coming from two different panels. If they're from the same panel I would run one conduit.
 
C

cdslotz

Senior Member
mstrlucky74 said:
Thanks. I have the same equipment setup in another closet about 150' away going to the same LP3B-LMC panel. I ask my self why would you runs conduit al the way. Wouldn't it make sense to run MC from a point near the panel to a point near the equipment if you have hung/accessible ceilings.
Click to expand...


Because running MC 150' in a commercial building is hack imo...probably is against the spec too...
 
P

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
cdslotz said:
Because running MC 150' in a commercial building is hack imo...probably is against the spec too...
Click to expand...

what's wrong with MC? It is perfectly acceptable by code. As long as the spec does not prohibit it and it is installed in an appropriate manner who cares? It's not a beauty contest, and probably no one is going to see it anyway once the install is complete. Besides, MC has its own kind of beauty. :)
 
M

mstrlucky74

Senior Member
Location
NJ
petersonra said:
what's wrong with MC? It is perfectly acceptable by code. As long as the spec does not prohibit it and it is installed in an appropriate manner who cares? It's not a beauty contest, and probably no one is going to see it anyway once the install is complete. Besides, MC has its own kind of beauty. :)
Click to expand...

Agree
 
C

cdslotz

Senior Member
petersonra said:
what's wrong with MC? It is perfectly acceptable by code. As long as the spec does not prohibit it and it is installed in an appropriate manner who cares? It's not a beauty contest, and probably no one is going to see it anyway once the install is complete. Besides, MC has its own kind of beauty. :)
Click to expand...

I bet a dollar to a donut that those specs allow MC only in furred walls and fixture whips, ....just a guess
The tags on those circuits show 3/4"C ......do you just ignore that?
It also leads me to believe there is a 3/4" minimum spec....

Just as an in-house company policy, we do not run MC home runs, and we use a hard pipe main trunk for MWBC's with J-boxes and drops to furred walls and up to fixture whips
 
P

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
cdslotz said:
I bet a dollar to a donut that those specs allow MC only in furred walls and fixture whips, ....just a guess
The tags on those circuits show 3/4"C ......do you just ignore that?
Click to expand...
The dwg also clearly shows running two separate conduits yet the consensus seems to be that requirement should be ignored in favor of running just one. And why does it need to be #12? Maybe you could get by with #14. How far are we willing to go on cheating on the requirements in the specs and the dwgs?
 
C

cdslotz

Senior Member
petersonra said:
The dwg also clearly shows running two separate conduits yet the consensus seems to be that requirement should be ignored in favor of running just one. And why does it need to be #12? Maybe you could get by with #14. How far are we willing to go on cheating on the requirements in the specs and the dwgs?
Click to expand...

Because the tags say #12...what is the point to this statement?

mrlucky74 already stated they were coming from the same panel, according to the schedules
 
M

mstrlucky74

Senior Member
Location
NJ
cdslotz said:
I bet a dollar to a donut that those specs allow MC only in furred walls and fixture whips, ....just a guess
The tags on those circuits show 3/4"C ......do you just ignore that?
It also leads me to believe there is a 3/4" minimum spec....

Just as an in-house company policy, we do not run MC home runs, and we use a hard pipe main trunk for MWBC's with J-boxes and drops to furred walls and up to fixture whips
Click to expand...


MC cable is allowed above hung ceilings.
We don't run MC homeruns either. I'm talking about pipe from panel to a box close by then MC 150' to another box by the equipment then conduit to the equipment.
 
P

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
cdslotz said:
Because the tags say #12...what is the point to this statement?

mrlucky74 already stated they were coming from the same panel, according to the schedules
Click to expand...

because if you are going to ignore one thing on the dwgs for your own convenience why can't you ignore anything you don't want to do, especially if it still meets code.
 
infinity

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
petersonra said:
The dwg also clearly shows running two separate conduits yet the consensus seems to be that requirement should be ignored in favor of running just one. And why does it need to be #12? Maybe you could get by with #14. How far are we willing to go on cheating on the requirements in the specs and the dwgs?
Click to expand...

#12 is the minimum conductor size in mrluckys jurisdiction.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top