Can't find actual codes against this

[woody75]

I am not sure I fully understand the configuration you are describing.

I guess what i am seeing as "parallel neutrals" is because outlet 7 shares a neutral with outlets 9 and 11, but outlet 7 hot is now spliced to the hots of outlets 1, 3, and5 which have a seperate neutral... so of the 4 outlets now on one circuit, 3 of them come back on one neutral while the fourth comes back on a different neutral shared with 2 other citcuits.

Meaning that different devices on the same circuit have different neutral paths back to the panel.

 

[GoldDigger]

I guess what i am seeing as "parallel neutrals" is because outlet 7 shares a neutral with outlets 9 and 11, but outlet 7 hot is now spliced to the hots of outlets 1, 3, and5 which have a seperate neutral... so of the 4 outlets now on one circuit, 3 of them come back on one neutral while the fourth comes back on a different neutral shared with 2 other citcuits.

Meaning that different devices on the same circuit have different neutral paths back to the panel.

But under both common and NEC definition the two would only be in parallel if one device could send current back through both neutrals. That is not happening.

 

[jap]

I guess what i am seeing as "parallel neutrals" is because outlet 7 shares a neutral with outlets 9 and 11, but outlet 7 hot is now spliced to the hots of outlets 1, 3, and5 which have a seperate neutral... so of the 4 outlets now on one circuit, 3 of them come back on one neutral while the fourth comes back on a different neutral shared with 2 other citcuits.

Meaning that different devices on the same circuit have different neutral paths back to the panel.

What your seeing is correct except for the "Paralleled Neutral Return" part.

Original circuits 1,3 and 5 returned on 1 single neutral.

Original circuits 7,9 and 11 returned on 1 single neutral.

As far as the return path, it doesn't matter that old circuit 7 now gets its power from circuit 1.

if nothing was changed in the field, it is still only using 1 single neutral wire for its return path. Not 2.

JAP>

 

[woody75]

But under both common and NEC definition the two would only be in parallel if one device could send current back through both neutrals. That is not happening.

Understood and agreed. I think my mindset is more out of habit. These original networks leave the panel together in the same conduit and hit the floor cells of a Robertson floor duct system with a dedicated hand hole for in-floor splices. From that first home run box there are 2 grounded conductors in the same raceway from the neutral bar that serve multiple devices on one breaker... It just felt wrong.

 

[jap]

You are correct that they have "different" paths.

But they don't have "parallel" paths meaning that return current is returning on 2 different neutrals at the same time.

JAP>

 

[woody75]

Thanks, everyone for the quick and professional replies.

As i now accept, code doesn't require my tradition. I would have removed the extra wire from the panel to the homerun box so that there was only 1 wire from each point in the panel to the homerun box and made all of my spices in that first box.

 

[charlie b]

Not seeing it, the changes were made at the panel each conduit or cable contains all it's associated circuit conductors.

I am not sure I am seeing it either. The installation confuses me. But I think what is happening is that there is current leaving circuit breaker #1 and going four places. It is going to receptacles 1, 3, and 5, and returning on a common neutral. All four of those wires are in the same conduit. OK so far. The fourth place is receptacle 7. The hot conductor and neutral conductor that connect to receptacle 7 are in the same conduit. Again, OK so far. But since receptacles 1, 3, 5, and 7 are all feed from the same circuit breaker, shouldn't all their conductors be in the same conduit?

Perhaps I am overthinking this. Consider a simpler circuit" one circuit breaker, one hot, one neutral, one EGC. Three wires leave the panel in one conduit, and go to a junction box. Inside the box, you connect the incoming hot conductor to three outgoing hot conductors, and do the same with the neutrals and EGCs. Leaving the box are three conduits, each with one hot, one neutral, and one EGC, and these go to three separate loads. Except for the connections happening inside the panel instead of inside a remote junction box, is this essentially the same configuration as the OP has described? :?

 

[jap]

I am not sure I am seeing it either. The installation confuses me. But I think what is happening is that there is current leaving circuit breaker #1 and going four places. It is going to receptacles 1, 3, and 5, and returning on a common neutral. All four of those wires are in the same conduit. OK so far. The fourth place is receptacle 7. The hot conductor and neutral conductor that connect to receptacle 7 are in the same conduit. Again, OK so far. But since receptacles 1, 3, 5, and 7 are all feed from the same circuit breaker, shouldn't all their conductors be in the same conduit?

I don't know that the OP ever clarified how it was piped out of the panel.
It may be that circuits 1,3,5,7,9,11 their Neutrals and Grounds are all in the same conduit to begin with.

JAP>

 

[woody75]

I don't know that the OP ever clarified how it was piped out of the panel.
It may be that circuits 1,3,5,7,9,11 their Neutrals and Grounds are all in the same conduit to begin with.

JAP>

Yes, they were all in the same conduit from the panel to the first JB in the field. Two 5 wire networks with 3 hots, a neut and a ground each.

Now after the reconfiguration, there are still 10 wires from the panel to the first JB, 4 of them (2 blacks, 1 red, 1 blue) are all the same circuit spliced in the breaker panel to the same breaker and in the same conduit to the first JB. 2 neutrals from the panel in the same conduit to the first JB where they are each spliced and branched off to their respective outlets. Grounds match the neuts.

 

[woody75]

If i had done it, i would either have removed the extra 5 wires and had a single 5 wire network from the panel to the first JB, or i would have pulled out the 3 duplicate hots and pulled in a 3rd neutral so that each final circuit had its own grounded conductor. I was just hoping to find an actual code to support this. To me, it is a much neater, cleaner, more professional method than to have so many duplicate purpose wires in a single conduit, especially when the panel is at the origin of that conduit.

 

[iwire]

If i had done it, i would either have removed the extra 5 wires and had a single 5 wire network from the panel to the first JB, or i would have pulled out the 3 duplicate hots and pulled in a 3rd neutral so that each final circuit had its own grounded conductor. I was just hoping to find an actual code to support this. To me, it is a much neater, cleaner, more professional method than to have so many duplicate purpose wires in a single conduit, especially when the panel is at the origin of that conduit.

And that there is likely why they did not have you do it. It was cheaper to do it messy.

I salute your standards but the person paying for the work gets to decide how neat they want it. (Within the rules of course)

 

[jap]

If i had done it, i would either have removed the extra 5 wires and had a single 5 wire network from the panel to the first JB, or i would have pulled out the 3 duplicate hots and pulled in a 3rd neutral so that each final circuit had its own grounded conductor. I was just hoping to find an actual code to support this. To me, it is a much neater, cleaner, more professional method than to have so many duplicate purpose wires in a single conduit, especially when the panel is at the origin of that conduit.

And even at that, you probably wouldn't have been satisfied with the color scheme not matching up past the 1st J-Box, and, no need to go loading up the neutral by pulling separate neutrals for each circuit.

There are advantages to MWBC's.

Try to look at the bright side.
If more circuits need to be added back in the future, and they ask you, at least You'll know where to look and the majority of the wire will still be in place for you to be able to do so.

JAP>

 

[Smart $]

Yes, they were all in the same conduit from the panel to the first JB in the field. Two 5 wire networks with 3 hots, a neut and a ground each.

Now after the reconfiguration, there are still 10 wires from the panel to the first JB, 4 of them (2 blacks, 1 red, 1 blue) are all the same circuit spliced in the breaker panel to the same breaker and in the same conduit to the first JB. 2 neutrals from the panel in the same conduit to the first JB where they are each spliced and branched off to their respective outlets. Grounds match the neuts.

The whole problem you see would go away if you landed former 1,3,5,7 group to breaker No. 7. You have a MWBC as it is now, but the problem is the handle tie requirement cannot be fulfilled with circuits in spaces 1,9,11. Change it to 7, 9, and 11... or 1, 3 (formerly 9), and 5 (formerly 11) and you or they are good to go...

 

[Smart $]

The whole problem you see would go away if you landed former 1,3,5,7 group to breaker No. 7. You have a MWBC as it is now, but the problem is the handle tie requirement cannot be fulfilled with circuits in spaces 1,9,11. Change it to 7, 9, and 11... or 1, 3 (formerly 9), and 5 (formerly 11) and you or they are good to go...

Let me clarify that. You have full boat which some of it is an MWBC and some is a 2-wire (though it uses more than two wires). The violation is of the handle tie requirement and cannot be met until you get the A-B-C breakers next to each other... and install a handle tie on the A-B-C breakers.

 

[jap]

Let me clarify that. You have full boat which some of it is an MWBC and some is a 2-wire (though it uses more than two wires). The violation is of the handle tie requirement and cannot be met until you get the A-B-C breakers next to each other... and install a handle tie on the A-B-C breakers.

Or get the neutral for old circuit 7 Which is now circuit 1 off of 9and 11's neutral and put it on new circuit 1's neutral and leave it as a 2wire circuit where no handle tie is needed for the 1p breaker in circuit 1 and leave 9and 11 as a MWBC with a handle tie.

JAP>

 

[Smart $]

Or get the neutral for old circuit 7 Which is now circuit 1 off of 9and 11's neutral and put it on new circuit 1's neutral and leave it as a 2wire circuit where no handle tie is needed for the 1p breaker in circuit 1 and leave 9and 11 as a MWBC with a handle tie.

Yes, another possibility.

 

[tom baker]

Wow. Dueling moderators.
Just goes to show you how hard the code can be to understand

 

[Smart $]

Anyway, that covers the physics aspect of compliance. Next is the administrative part, i.e. circuit identification. From what I gleaned, line identification is accomplished by way of conductor insulation color. The facility can throw that out the window now... figuratively speaking, of course .

Worse yet is if the facility has more than one nominal voltage system [210.5(C)(1)]. hmy:

 

[jap]

Anyway, that covers the physics aspect of compliance. Next is the administrative part, i.e. circuit identification. From what I gleaned, line identification is accomplished by way of conductor insulation color. The facility can throw that out the window now... figuratively speaking, of course .

Worse yet is if the facility has more than one nominal voltage system [210.5(C)(1)]. hmy:

One of the plants I work in uses black for all 480v and red for all 120v.
Lots of wire numbering but less inventory on wire colors.

JAP>

 

[winnie]

I agree, if the field wiring was correct and compliant as 2 separate MWBCs (1,3,5 and 7,9,11) then there is no reason to change the field wiring in order to combine the circuits.

Rather than supplying all of the original 1,3,5,7 conductors from breaker 1, I would have supplied 1 and 7 from breaker 7...3 and 9 from breaker 9, and 5 and 11 from breaker 11.

This would free up the same number of breakers, keep loads distributed on the supply phases and on the field neutrals, keep the facility color code intact, and possibly save a wirenut

-Jon