Feeding panel through another panel

[brother]

I wanted to be sure I told a buddy correctly, but he asked if it was a NEC violation to feed a panel through another panel, (where the conductors just pass through the bottom). I said NO, so long as there is 'adequate space' provided. Its not the best design, and some people might not like it, but there is is no NEC violation here.

I also reminded him to be sure that 'service' conductors do not share the same raceway as other conductors.

Was I right on the 'panel' feed through?? I double checked code and couldnt find any violation.

 

[charlie b]

You were right. Have a look at 312.8.

 

[Cow]

I got popped for running conductors through a panel in Washington once. I can't remember if he cited a WAC code or if he just didn't like it, it's probably been 4 years ago.

But, I haven't tried to do it since.:grin:

 

[brother]

I got popped for running conductors through a panel in Washington once. I can't remember if he cited a WAC code or if he just didn't like it, it's probably been 4 years ago.

But, I haven't tried to do it since.:grin:

I would love to know WHERE in the WAC that would be, think you can try to find it for us?
These inspectors 'tickle' me when there is no code violation, but is just something they just dont 'like' , you cant make up code as you go,, too much power tripping!!!

 

[LarryFine]

One of my best friends used to build elevators (but now designs, builds, and sells processor-based selectors), and when an inspector said something along the same "I'd feel better if you would . . . " lines, he'd respond with "Just sign the change order."

 

[Looker]

Read NEC 408.3 (3)

 

[SEO]

An inspectors change order is a red tag.

 

[infinity]

Read NEC 408.3 (3)

Does that section apply to panel-boards?

 

[M. D.]

a picture

 

[charlie b]

I would love to know WHERE in the WAC that would be, think you can try to find it for us?

The manner in which the State of Washington revises the NEC to suit its specific needs and desires is to publish a WAC (Washington Admin Code) article that carries a similar paragraph number to the corresponding article of the NEC. Therefore, if this issue had been revised in the WAC, there would be a WAC article with the paragraph number "WAC 296-46B-312," to match the NEC article 312. There is no such WAC article.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

Does that section apply to panel-boards?

I say that subsection applies to switchboards, and not panelboards. [408.3(A)(3)]

 

[eds]

I got tagged on that once, had a interesting discussion with the inspector, after a month of waiting I was told that the load center had to also meet the pull box sizing requirements. I had a 2 1/2'' nipple feeding the first panel. I do believe I will print that picture and send it to him. I have also seen a picture of that in EC&M magazine and may show him that also.

 

[ed downey]

The only time you cannot do as others have posted is if One Panel in Normal Power & the other Panel is fed from an Article 700 Emergency System.

 

[brother]

a picture

What book of mike holts did that picture come out of??