408.41 Grounded Conductors

[jaggedben]

No one has responded to my point that the definition of Branch Circuit doesn't specify where the branch circuit starts on the grounded conductor(s).

If I assert that the jumper used in any of my cases (1) through (3) is not part of the branch circuit but is an extension of the feeder feeding the panel, the definition doesn't contradict that. Is there any other language in the NEC to contradict that assertion?

Cheers, Wayne

To be an extension of the feeder it needs to have to same ampacity as the feeder, or at least meet minimum requirements. But I agree with you in principle.

Not sure that I follow. If you have 2-12/2 cables entering the panel and land each hot leg on a CB and splice the neutrals together with a pigtail to the neutral bus you must create a MWBC, meaning that each breaker is on a different phase. The code sections are in post #28.

As I said above, I don't see the violation in using a Polaris type block to extend the neutral bus to more terminals. Same as adding an additional neutral bar kit.

 

[wwhitney]

Feeders are on the line side of the final ocpd.

Great, I agree. So for the grounded conductor within a panelboard enclosure, in the usual case where there is no OCPD in the conductor, what defines where the feeder ends and the branch circuit starts? Is there an NEC section that addresses this?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

what you described does not meet the definition of a feeder.

Can you expand on that? The definition of feeder tells us that it ends at the "final branch-circuit overcurrent device", but there is usually no overcurrent device in the grounded conductor. So within a panelboard enclosure, how can we tell where the grounded conductor changes from being a feeder to be being a branch circuit?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[infinity]

Can you expand on that? The definition of feeder tells us that it ends at the "final branch-circuit overcurrent device", but there is usually no overcurrent device in the grounded conductor. So within a panelboard enclosure, how can we tell where the grounded conductor changes from being a feeder to be being a branch circuit?

Cheers, Wayne

The feeder is the entire circuit including the grounded and ungrounded conductors. Take a look at the definition from Article 100:

Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment, the source of a separately derived system, or other
power supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device.

 

[jaggedben]

The feeder is the entire circuit including the grounded and ungrounded conductors. Take a look at the definition from Article 100:

And? How does that contradict Wayne's point?

 

[wwhitney]

The feeder is the entire circuit including the grounded and ungrounded conductors. Take a look at the definition from Article 100:

That's right. So again, how do you find the demarcation point on the grounded conductor? If I say that I associate the jumper conductor with the ungrounded conductors before the OCPD, what contradicts that?

After all, the conductors in that 12/2 NM of your example end on the OCPD and at the wirenut to the pigtail. The pigtail is not part of the 12/2 cable, so it is not part of the branch circuit. At least that is the argument for which I can find no rebuttal in the text of the NEC.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[infinity]

Regardless of what happens to the neutral conductors there is no OCPD on both ends therefore it cannot be a feeder by definition.

 

[JFletcher]

That's right. So again, how do you find the demarcation point on the grounded conductor? If I say that I associate the jumper conductor with the ungrounded conductors before the OCPD, what contradicts that?

After all, the conductors in that 12/2 NM of your example end on the OCPD and at the wirenut to the pigtail. The pigtail is not part of the 12/2 cable, so it is not part of the branch circuit. At least that is the argument for which I can find no rebuttal in the text of the NEC.

Cheers, Wayne

The contradiction is in the definition of a feeder, which is all circuit conductors. A neutral by itself is not a circuit.

if I am interpreting your argument correctly, would you be saying that I could combine 3 20 #12 branch circuits in a junction box a hundred feet away from the panel, and run a #6 neutral to that junction box as a feeder? And that I do not have a multiwire branch circuit from that junction box back to the panel?

There are also other contradictions to this installation besides definition of feeders and branch circuits.

The delineation point is the neutral bar. More to the point, 408.41 would preclude you from taking a feeder or service neutral, and all of the branch circuit neutrals, and sticking them under one humongous, multi wire rated split bolt or 40 port Wago.

I do see your point about there not being a clear delineation point on branch circuit neutrals, perhaps it is just convention that I consider that the neutral bar. I could possibly be swayed by your argument and comments on that, though a jumper from the neutral bar or bars serving two or more ungrounded connectors the same voltage apart creates a multiwire branch circuit in any case.

 

[wwhitney]

if I am interpreting your argument correctly, would you be saying that I could combine 3 20 #12 branch circuits in a junction box a hundred feet away from the panel, and run a #6 neutral to that junction box as a feeder? And that I do not have a multiwire branch circuit from that junction box back to the panel?

No, my argument only concerns the grounded conductors within a panelboard enclosure. I think we can agree that the grounded conductor in the cable/conduit supplying the panelboard is a feeder conductor, and the grounded conductors that leave the panelboard enclosure to supply the utilization equipment are branch circuit conductors. But the demarcation point between feeder and branch circuit for the grounded conductor within the panelboard enclosure is undefined.

I do see your point about there not being a clear delineation point on branch circuit neutrals, perhaps it is just convention that I consider that the neutral bar.

Right, that's my point, it's a convention not a definition.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[wwhitney]

The delineation point is the neutral bar. More to the point, 408.41 would preclude you from taking a feeder or service neutral, and all of the branch circuit neutrals, and sticking them under one humongous, multi wire rated split bolt or 40 port Wago.

Sorry, doesn't this mythical 40 port Wago provide 40 "individual terminals", making it compliant with the text of 480.41?

More to the point, suppose I have a 480/277Y panelboard supplying a 3-wire feeder to a 480V panelboard without neutral bar, and I need to add (3) 277V circuits. If running new conduit to the 480/277Y panelboard is difficult, what is wrong with pulling an appropriately size neutral into the conduit feeding the 480V panelboard, adding circuit breakers for the (3) new 277V circuits to that panelboard, and then using a wago/polaris connector to connect the new feeder neutral with the (3) new branch circuit neutrals?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Adamjamma]

Ok, under the logic used in one of the posts, as I am seeing it... you only have so many slots on the bar.., the panel is changed from main panel to sub panel because you are made to put a disconnect by the meter for some reason. You cannot find any neutral or ground bars to put into the panel but have to change the panel to separate the neutrals.
So 7nder one post, because Wagos are insulated, you run a line of the five lever Wagos down the side of the panel, connecting the neutrals each on their own lever but at the same time jumpering to keep the neutrals connected.., and when Wagos are too small you jumper using splices.
not sure about code but could see doing this and feeling it was safe enough... due to the Wagos properties... but would rather find a proper neutral bar even if not from the same manufacturer

 

[JFletcher]

Sorry, doesn't this mythical 40 port Wago provide 40 "individual terminals", making it compliant with the text of 480.41?

More to the point, suppose I have a 480/277Y panelboard supplying a 3-wire feeder to a 480V panelboard without neutral bar, and I need to add (3) 277V circuits. If running new conduit to the 480/277Y panelboard is difficult, what is wrong with pulling an appropriately size neutral into the conduit feeding the 480V panelboard, adding circuit breakers for the (3) new 277V circuits to that panelboard, and then using a wago/polaris connector to connect the new feeder neutral with the (3) new branch circuit neutrals?

Cheers, Wayne

Off the top of my head, I would say that said sub panel without a neutral bar is rated 480v, 3ph, 3w Delta, and that running a feeder neutral to the panel converts it to a 480y/277V 4w 3ph panel, which would be a violation of its listing or labeling. At that point it is immaterial whether or not your Polaris connected feeder neutral to branch circuit neutrals is code or not.

Now, if your panel had a 4 wire feed with feed through lugs, and used the neutral feed-through lug to a Polaris connector for some extra branch circuit neutrals, I don't have a code section to preclude that installation, though the jumper from the feed-through neutral lug to the Polaris connector may not make it as a legitimate terminal block, by way of manufacturer specification or other code articles not cited.

 

[LarryFine]

Wow. I leave you guys alone for a few hours, and you completely trash my thread. Boy, some peoples' children! Just kidding, but you did stray from my direct point in a few tangents, so let me narrow it back down, at least for me, and concede these points:

1. Forget the panel-board-and-enclosure issue; it's a plain ol' breaker panel.

2. Forget the extension-of-the-feeder issue; it's a 3-phase main-lug panel.

3. I stipulate that it is electrically a MWBC for the 6" of shared conductor only.

In normal cases, the shared neutral and the (two or) three hot conductors, correctly on opposing phases, enter the same raceway or cable. Let's say they emerge in a J-box and separate into three 2-conductor circuits. No question this is a MWBC, and the breakers must be tied.

Otherwise, someone could de-energize the one circuit they're working on and not realize the neutral is still carrying current. However, they theoretically would see additional non-grounded conductors wherever they are accessing the neutral, but there could be more than one MWBC.

In any case, that it (shared neutrals of MWBC's being opened while still under load) has happened is proof enough that the requirement for simultaneous disconnect of all circuits sharing a conductor is a prudent rule. One can not see that all breakers involved have been opened.

In this case, one would have to open the panel in question to access the neutral joint in question. Upon seeing the three white conductors entering three separate cables, they would immediately see the three associated black wires, and easily trace them to the three 1-pole breakers.

It would take a very unqualified individual to decide to open this connection without manually de-energizing the breakers supplying all black wires. There would be no doubt to an experienced electrician what he is faced with when seeing two or three white wires pig-tailed to the neutral bus.

That's all I'm saying: that the junction and the breakers being in the same enclosure makes it impossible to encounter one without seeing the other. I'm agreeing that this is a MWBC for the 6" length of the pig-tail, but arguing that there is no advantage to tied breaker handles in this instance.


Thoughts?

 

[LarryFine]

Now, if your panel had a 4 wire feed with feed through lugs, and used the neutral feed-through lug to a Polaris connector for some extra branch circuit neutrals, I don't have a code section to preclude that installation, though the jumper from the feed-through neutral lug to the Polaris connector may not make it as a legitimate terminal block, by way of manufacturer specification or other code articles not cited.

Okay, let's say this scenario, but with a #12 jumper feeding three grounded conductors using a wirenut.

Would your jumper and Polaris trigger the need to handle-tie the three individual single-pole breakers?

 

[JFletcher]

Okay, let's say this scenario, but with a #12 jumper feeding three grounded conductors using a wirenut.

Would your jumper and Polaris trigger the need to handle-tie the three individual single-pole breakers?

yes. By your own post above in point number three, you admit circuit is a multiwire branch circuit. I completely understand your point and reasoning that it's within the panel and would be obvious to anyone with half a clue, however I believe the breakers still have to be handle tied.

And sorry to trash the thread some more :happyno:, but in response to Wayne's question:

The language that would preclude Wayne's installation of a Polaris connector from a feeder to branch circuits is in the article 100 definition of a panel board. That Polaris connector is not part of the panel board, thus would violate 408.41.

This Thread has been mentally exhausting.:dunce:

 

[jaggedben]

yes. By your own post above in point number three, you admit circuit is a multiwire branch circuit. I completely understand your point and reasoning that it's within the panel and would be obvious to anyone with half a clue, however I believe the breakers still have to be handle tied.

And sorry to trash the thread some more :happyno:, but in response to Wayne's question:

The language that would preclude Wayne's installation of a Polaris connector from a feeder to branch circuits is in the article 100 definition of a panel board. That Polaris connector is not part of the panel board, thus would violate 408.41.

This Thread has been mentally exhausting.:dunce:

Where in the definition of a panelboard does it provide any clarity on whether the neutral bar is a part of the panelboard, and where in 408.41 does it say that the circuit conductors need to be terminated to the panelboard? I don't see either.

 

[Adamjamma]

Otherwise, someone could de-energize the one circuit they're working on and not realize the neutral is still carrying current. However, they theoretically would see additional non-grounded conductors wherever they are accessing the neutral, but there could be more than one MWBC.

In any case, that it (shared neutrals of MWBC's being opened while still under load) has happened is proof enough that the requirement for simultaneous disconnect of all circuits sharing a conductor is aopened.

In this case, one would have to open the panel in question to access the neutral joint in question. Upon seeing the three white conductors entering three separate cables, they would immediately see the three associated black wires, and easily trace them to the three 1-pole breakers.

It would take a very unqualified individual to decide to open this connection without manually de-energizing the breakers supplying all black wires. There would be no doubt to an experienced electrician what he is faced with when seeing two or three white wires pig-tailed to the neutral bus

Thoughts?

first... and only thought, is that in the case of neutrals and of grounds... all are technically mwbc circuits because all tie back to one line in a panel or breaker or whatever, without going through a breaker and thus all have the potential to carry fault current.

that is why I said it would be possible and prudent if one has no available slots left in a neutral bar that one could combine circuits using Wagos... the five position wago would allow you to combine four wires to one slot on the neutral bar.

Besides, as old installations have shown us... the reason why we handle tie an MWBC is because that neutral is sharing the possible fault current within one cable or one conduit.. if you run the cable or conduit with enough neutrals to have a one live one neutral then you do not need to handle tie the breakers... unless you are using the two lives to provide a 240 volt circuit... in which theoretically no fault current comes back on a neutral,but instead comes back on one of the live wires.

thus, the idea that you are creating an MWBC by tying the neutrals together yet having the cables themselves leave from within the box is incorrect... unless you are using the 240 capabilities of the possible circuit you do not need to handle tie.

the need for separate spots on the neutral bar is more for testing circuits and tracing circuits than for actual reasons in my own mind because they will all be sharing some current at all times.

 

[JFletcher]

first... and only thought, is that in the case of neutrals and of grounds... all are technically mwbc circuits because all tie back to one line in a panel or breaker or whatever, without going through a breaker and thus all have the potential to carry fault current.

that is why I said it would be possible and prudent if one has no available slots left in a neutral bar that one could combine circuits using Wagos... the five position wago would allow you to combine four wires to one slot on the neutral bar.

Besides, as old installations have shown us... the reason why we handle tie an MWBC is because that neutral is sharing the possible fault current within one cable or one conduit.. if you run the cable or conduit with enough neutrals to have a one live one neutral then you do not need to handle tie the breakers... unless you are using the two lives to provide a 240 volt circuit... in which theoretically no fault current comes back on a neutral,but instead comes back on one of the live wires.

thus, the idea that you are creating an MWBC by tying the neutrals together yet having the cables themselves leave from within the box is incorrect... unless you are using the 240 capabilities of the possible circuit you do not need to handle tie.

the need for separate spots on the neutral bar is more for testing circuits and tracing circuits than for actual reasons in my own mind because they will all be sharing some current at all times.

We have been on the same page with many of our ideas, however I have to diverge from your views on this post.

A branch circuit and a multiwire branch circuit are two different animals. Just because all of those circuits have their neutrals landed on a common bar does not change anything in the way that they operate. Yes, the panel is also fed from a multiwire branch circuit, which only becomes an issue with a lost feeder or service neutral, in which case all 120 volt loads are not operating in parallel, but at 240 volts in series, which usually lets the smoke out of higher impedance devices like Electronics.

While you can physically put 4 branch circuit neutrals into a Wago with a pigtail running to the neutral bar, this violates numerous Electrical Codes, which is that now you have parallel small conductors, and if you also happen to pull three or four of those branch circuit neutrals from circuits on the same leg, there is no way the pigtail to the neutral bar could be sized large enough for the additive load. Even if you made it an even 2 and 2, you now have two branch circuit neutrals connected to one pigtail. If I were to do this with 4 15 amp Branch circuits, and plugged in 2 1500 watt space heaters fed from branch circuits that terminate on breakers fed from the same leg, the current returning on the neutrals would sum to 25 amps (3000w/120v) on that jumper. In a split phase panel, the best you can do is run two neutrals into a Wago with a jumper to the neutral bar, creating a proper multiwire branch circuit, and handle tie the breakers together (or use a 2 pole breaker). In a 3 phase panel, you could do this with 3 circuits on different legs.

Fault current has nothing to do with it. If you lift the neutral on a multiwire branch circuit, and it has unbalanced loads on each leg (which it will almost always have), if you accidentally place yourself in series between that neutral and the neutral bar, you're going to get lit up like a Christmas ?. if this happened on a 277 volt circuit, you're going to have an extremely bad day. This is the main reason that multiwire Branch circuits have to now be handle tied... if they were not, someone could turn off one breaker thinking they have secured power, while another breaker is still feeding loads on that circuit and coming back through the neutral that is now in your hand making you do the wicked chicken.

Perhaps in euro-spec panels there are spaces for test equipment, but the holes in the neutral bar are for individual wires. While some tests can be done with the neutrals and grounds landed on the bars, others, like finding an illegal neutral to neutral or neutral to ground bond, require lifting the neutral and ground
from the bars in the panel.

Jaggedben, I'm going to wait for Wayne to reply before answering your question.

Edit: I had forgotten that some Wagos now accept a number 10 wire, though this would technically work with 15 amp circuits, it is still against code to create a bastardized MWBC and connect its neutrals to the neutral bar in this fashion.

 

[Adamjamma]

But what are we doing when we use a number eight wire to jumper from one neutral bar to another neutral bar so we can get more spaces for neutrals to land on... my own Wagos I have some that take from 8 to 12 but amperage is only 40 amps... which is where we run into problems as the actual bar has a higher amperage rating.
But, as I stated, neutrals and grounds do not create mwbc circuits... lives do... and as long as the ground or neutral are brought back to the supply panel, it should be ok...

 

[infinity]

It seems that this thread has veered off on a tangent to where we're trying to find ways to circumvent the NEC just to prove a point. If we get back to the OP Larry stated that he has three branch circuits (on different phases) entering a panel enclosure and wants to splice the three neutrals together and land one neutral pigtail on the neutral bar. This is code compliant because a MWBC has been created (as long as the MWBC requirements are also met). It does not create parallel conductors because the neutrals are not connected at both ends.

So the question has always been since post #2 are neutrals permitted to be spliced and pigtailed in a cabinet? The answer is yes, the unclear part is why the NEC refers to "within the panelboard" when applying 408.41, IMO it's just a poor choice of words.