sub-panels

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you for the article.
Ok if I understand this correctly I needed to install a ground rod, separate the grounds and neutrals (no bonding bolt on neutral), bonding bolt on ground bar. Correct?
 

Mule

Senior Member
Location
Oklahoma
Wow, Im glad I read this thread.......Been doing it the old way too long..

Trying to understand the reason behind the change??? I guess I could see a potential hazzard if the two structures where in close distance to one another and you lost a neatral connecting.....resulting in two ground rods seeking one another for a current path....Meanwhile someone touches the wrong thing and the right time..Is this the reason for the change?
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Trying to understand the reason behind the change???
Here's Mike Holt's substantiation:

Substantiation: There are many, many issues that need to be addressed in this
Code allowance. First, the allowance itself is very restrictive, when you look at
the parameters that must be followed in order to use this allowance. Consider
item (2), which requires that no continuous metal paths are installed between
the structures. This is too difficult to enforce, when this permission has been
used, only to have another tradesperson install such a metal path after the
original installation. While I understand that Panel 5 cannot predict future
violations, I think some proactive thinking is in order here. Panel 5 exercised
good judgment last code cycle when it set forth the sizing requirements for a
common grounding electrode conductor for multiple separately derived
systems, based on the possibility of a future change to premises wiring system
[250.30(A)(4)(a)]. Such logic should be used once again for this code rule,
which is not only difficult to enforce, but also could create very significant
hazards.
In addition to the enforcement issues, let us examine the safety issues that
might result from this rule:
Multiple neutral-to-ground connections, that would occur if parallel
continuous metallic paths are installed at a later date, create a condition where
neutral current and ground-fault current will flow through conductive metal
parts of a building or electrical system. This current flow can cause death from
electric shock and property damage from fires. Preventing these two issues is
the very purpose of the Code, as set forth in 90.1(A).
Electric Shock - Electric shock can occur if the feeder grounded conductor to
a separate structure is open because the allowed neutral-to-ground connection
permits neutral current to flow onto the metal parts of the electrical system.
Electric Shock from No Safety Ground. If the feeder grounded conductor is
open, the low-impedance path used to clear ground-fault current is lost. Under
this condition, a ground-fault will not be cleared and all metal parts of the
electrical system will be energized to line-voltage.
Fire. A fire is created when heat is sufficient to cause ignition. In electrical
systems, heat is generated whenever current flows. The temperature rise is
dependent on the square of the current flow (I) and the resistance of the
material (R), as well as the duration of the current flow (12R). A neutral-toground
connection (even if it meets the NEC requirements) can cause a fire,
and sometimes an explosion, due to an electric arc if the grounded conductor is
open.
When the grounded conductor is open, neutral current flows onto the metal
parts of the electrical system because a neutral-to-ground connection is allowed
within the structure disconnect enclosure. When the grounded conductor is
opened in wood frame construction, neutral current seeking a return path to the
power supply travels into the moist wood members. After many years, the
wood is converted into charcoal (wood with no moisture) because of the heat
generated from the current flow. The ignition temperature of the wood is
decreased and the temperature of the wood is increased because of neutral
current.
For the purposes of correlation, companion proposals have been submitted to
the following sections:
250.134, 250.24, 250.30, 250.142, 338.10(B), 450.5, 501.30, 502.30, 503.30,
505.25, 506.25, 547.9, 550.33, and 551.76
 

Mule

Senior Member
Location
Oklahoma
Here's Mike Holt's substantiation:

Wow, Thanks I can see it if the structures are within a certain close distance apart....but outside of that, Im not sure....next it will be required from the poco pole in to the service entrance, because the same things exist. You have water lines, gas lines, sewer lines, and power all coming out of the same Utility easement, which sometimes is in very close proximity. All relying on one system neutral and a bonded electrode at both ends. And sometimes the service drop and the structure are not to far apart.....

Ok, I'll change but I dont want to......:)
 
You used to be able to run 3 wires, put in a ground rod and then you would bond the neutral again at the seperate structure.
__________________
Where is this in the 2005 code?
 

e57

Senior Member
Monkey wrench....

Where in the code does it say you need to take all legs to a panel including a detatched structure? i.e. A 120v only panel.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
Do I really need to run 4 wires? What if I run a hot, a neutral and an EGC and just have a 120V subpanel. Is that a violation?

Mark

No that is not a violation, IMO, but that was not the question asked by the op- at least I made that assumption from his statement.
 

busman

Senior Member
Location
Northern Virginia
Occupation
Master Electrician / Electrical Engineer
I certainly knew what was meant, but it's the same confusion I get from HO's when talking about 240V receptacles.

2-pole, 3 wire is OK for new intstallation
3-pole, 3 wire for replacement only

M.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top