any issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
david luchini said:
I think you've found a technicality with 240.28(1), but I'm not sure it's what the code intends. It basically wipes out the motor feeder protection requirements of 430.61 for feeders 10' or shorter.
Click to expand...

I can't find 240.28(1).


are you talking about 240.21 (B)(1)?

how would this violate 430.61?
 
petersonra said:
...
I was thinking that there was language somewhere that said to treat parallel conductors as a single conductor but it does not actually say that.
Click to expand...
I thought that too, but not only do I not find that, I don't even find anything that tells me I can use an OCPD that is equal to the sum of the ampacities of the conductors that are installed in parallel.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I thought that too, but not only do I not find that, I don't even find anything that tells me I can use an OCPD that is equal to the sum of the ampacities of the conductors that are installed in parallel.
Click to expand...

I sent them a formal interpretation request.

DOES 240.21 PROHIBIT THE USE OF PARALLELED CONDUCTORS AS TAP CONDUCTORS OR THE EXTENSION OF TAP CONDUCTORS WITH APPROPRIATELY SIZED PARALLELED CONDUCTORS?
Click to expand...

I fully expect a response back in about 6 months saying I filled in the form wrong.
 
With 5 taps, it seems like you should just feed a distribution panel from the large breaker, and put the 5 smaller breakers in the panel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top