480v and 208v same conduit

[MD84]

We ran two separate three phase circuits in one conduit. That is 6 ungrounded conductors and one egc. They were intended to be 208v. The prints showed the utilization equipment of one circuit to be 208v however there was a mistake and it is actually 480v.

The 208 and 480v panels are next to eachother and it would be much quicker to cut in a JB and reroute the circuit into the 480v panel. The wires are black and have been identified by phase tape.

Is there any code section that prohibits or allows the two circuits of different voltages from running in the same conduit?

 

[iwire]

Is there any code section that prohibits or allows the two circuits of different voltages from running in the same conduit?

No, 480 and 208 systems are often intermingled.

 

[tom baker]

Generally no, but if they motor conductors they need to be functionally related.
And each conductor must be identified by phase and voltage, and that identification needs to be posted on each branch circuit panelboard.
There is no requirement for any specific color, unless its a midpoint grounded delta

 

[iwire]

Generally no, but if they motor conductors they need to be functionally related.

:?

Can you cite the code section you are thinking of?

 

[MD84]

Ok. I read your answer as not prohibited.

I found 300.3 (C)(1) allows it.

What about the single egc?

 

[ADub]

Ok. I read your answer as not prohibited.

I found 300.3 (C)(1) allows it.

What about the single egc?

Might be fine. I usually put a couple 2" nipples between the 480 and 208 panel.

 

[iwire]

I found 300.3 (C)(1) allows it.

Actually it is not prohibited so you do not need permission.

300.3(C) sets some conditions for doing so.

 

[MD84]

Got it.

Does the grouping of different voltage systems require the identification signage be placed or is this a general requirement w/o this grouping?

 

[iwire]

Got it.

Does the grouping of different voltage systems require the identification signage be placed or is this a general requirement w/o this grouping?

The conductors need identification, nothing more.

The single EGC is fine.

 

[MD84]

Very good. I will phase tape it like the other circuits and splice the egc at the JB. I appreciate the timely responses.

 

[GoldDigger]

Very good. I will phase tape it like the other circuits and splice the egc at the JB. I appreciate the timely responses.

Just note that they must also be identified at any intermediate junction boxes where the wires are accessible.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Generally no, but if they motor conductors they need to be functionally related.
And each conductor must be identified by phase and voltage, and that identification needs to be posted on each branch circuit panelboard.
There is no requirement for any specific color, unless its a midpoint grounded delta

Tom, I thought the "functionally related" only applied when mixing the motor conductors and the motor control conductors. Are you saying it applies to multiple sets of motor conductors in a common raceway too?

Also if the conductors are motor conductors there is no requirement to identify them by phase and system as motor circuit conductors are outside the scope of Article 210.

 

[MD84]

Just note that they must also be identified at any intermediate junction boxes where the wires are accessible.

Thanks. I assume that the conductors are not required to be identified in pull boxes. This would seem only practical to be required where spliced or otherwise terminated.

 

[MD84]

Well, it seems as though this practice is frowned upon around here. It was a no go. A new circuit is to be installed.

 

[iwire]

Well, it seems as though this practice is frowned upon around here. It was a no go. A new circuit is to be installed.

By the customer or the inspector?

I have no issue with a customer requiring seperation, but if it was the inspector they should be dope slapped.

Virtually every building we do will have 208 and 480 together in some raceways.

 

[MD84]

The foreman.

 

[iwire]

The foreman.

Well he needs a dope slap.

 

[MD84]

:lol:

 

[kwired]

Tom, I thought the "functionally related" only applied when mixing the motor conductors and the motor control conductors. Are you saying it applies to multiple sets of motor conductors in a common raceway too?

I myself wondered if there was some confusion in this area when he posted that.

Also if the conductors are motor conductors there is no requirement to identify them by phase and system as motor circuit conductors are outside the scope of Article 210.

Thank you, I have wanted justification for motors for a long time now, this does it. When running multiple motors in a common raceway I like to use all one color for each individual motor, usually phase/rotation isn't as important as keeping cross connections from happening, and we can always reverse a motor that runs the wrong direction.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
Thank you, I have wanted justification for motors for a long time now, this does it. When running multiple motors in a common raceway I like to use all one color for each individual motor, usually phase/rotation isn't as important as keeping cross connections from happening, and we can always reverse a motor that runs the wrong direction.

I don't remember who pointed that out to me. I was making the point that based on 210.5(C) you could only change the rotation at a motor and not at the starter and still be in compliance with the identification rules, but I was sent to the scope of Article 210.

210.1 Scope
This article covers branch circuits except for branch circuits that supply only motor loads, which are covered in Article 430.
Provisions of this article and Article 430 apply to branch circuits with combination loads.