Is this Single Line compliant?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see a single overcurrent protective device for the feeder to the second building even after it gets there.
 
Dennis:
Playing devil's advocate here:
IF you consider the 400 amp disconnects to be "emergency disconnects" and the conductors to the greenhouse are outside of building 1, would they not be considered "service" conductors under 230.40 Exception #3 ??
 
augie47 said:
Dennis:
Playing devil's advocate here:
IF you consider the 400 amp disconnects to be "emergency disconnects" and the conductors to the greenhouse are outside of building 1, would they not be considered "service" conductors under 230.40 Exception #3 ??
Click to expand...


That may be so but there is no main at the second building. There must be some ocpd somewhere.
 
It might be easier to get rid of the 400A unfused disconnect in the 2nd building.
Use a 400 amp panel with a 400 amp MCB to replace the 400A unfused disconnect in 2nd building. With the feeder breakers in the 400 amp panel, you can then delete first 200 MLO panel.
Feed your 2nd 200A MLO panel with #4/0 wire from 200 amp breaker from the 400 amp panel.

That seems to make more sense and is code compliant. Your first drawing does not show wire size or distances which leaves room for incorrect interpretation.
 
powerpete69 said:
It might be easier to get rid of the 400A unfused disconnect in the 2nd building.
Use a 400 amp panel with a 400 amp MCB to replace the 400A unfused disconnect in 2nd building. With the feeder breakers in the 400 amp panel, you can then delete first 200 MLO panel.
Feed your 2nd 200A MLO panel with #4/0 wire from 200 amp breaker from the 400 amp panel.

That seems to make more sense and is code compliant. Your first drawing does not show wire size or distances which leaves room for incorrect interpretation.
Click to expand...
This was the original design, simple, but the electrician is saying the backorder time for 400A panel/MCB is incredibly long (hard to believe this)

ibb.co

shed-to-separate-structure-lineup-1 hosted at ImgBB

Image shed-to-separate-structure-lineup-1 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co

That's why I'm trying to revise the single line to eliminate all 400A panel/mcb's
 
So what are the demands for Building 1 and Building 2? You may be able to have multiple 200A service disconnects. What are the building uses? Not sure if that impacts the rules in Article 230 on multiple service disconnects.

This is under the 2020 NEC? That allows you to have multiple feeders between buildings. I haven't checked Article 230, but perhaps you can have, say, (4) 200A service disconnects on Building 1, (2) of them supply Building 1 200A panelboard, and (2) of them supplying feeders to Building 2.

Cheers, Wayne
 
designer82 said:
This was the original design, simple, but the electrician is saying the backorder time for 400A panel/MCB is incredibly long (hard to believe this)

ibb.co

shed-to-separate-structure-lineup-1 hosted at ImgBB

Image shed-to-separate-structure-lineup-1 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co

That's why I'm trying to revise the single line to eliminate all 400A panel/mcb's
Click to expand...
There is a lot of what should be common electrical equipment that has back order dates of 25+ weeks.
 
designer82 said:
This was the original design, simple, but the electrician is saying the backorder time for 400A panel/MCB is incredibly long (hard to believe this)

ibb.co

shed-to-separate-structure-lineup-1 hosted at ImgBB

Image shed-to-separate-structure-lineup-1 hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co

That's why I'm trying to revise the single line to eliminate all 400A panel/mcb's
Click to expand...
Ahhhhh....this little piece of information would have been most helpful in your original post!!
Not trying to pick on you, but in general, people struggle with detailed communication.
You're answer is only as good as your question.
 
powerpete69 said:
Ahhhhh....this little piece of information would have been most helpful in your original post!!
Not trying to pick on you, but in general, people struggle with detailed communication.
You're answer is only as good as your question.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, good communication is critical.

After going through the various NEC sections, I think the best way to go with this one is a 400A unfused main disco. at bldg. 1 and a 400A fused disco at building 2 going to a wireway, then two 200A MCB panels.
 
So after going through the NEC (again) there are new rules added to the 2020 code.

The link below shows the new single line, with the 2020 code sections noted, which allow the particular configuration.

Please take a look and let me know if it seems ok now.

Thanks

ibb.co

greenhouse-separate-feeder hosted at ImgBB

Image greenhouse-separate-feeder hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
 
designer82 said:
So after going through the NEC (again) there are new rules added to the 2020 code.

The link below shows the new single line, with the 2020 code sections noted, which allow the particular configuration.

Please take a look and let me know if it seems ok now.

Thanks

ibb.co

greenhouse-separate-feeder hosted at ImgBB

Image greenhouse-separate-feeder hosted in ImgBB
ibb.co ibb.co
Click to expand...
Assuming the 200 disc in building 1 is fused? The 200 A disc and 200A panel are right next to the raceway in building 1...correct?
What's "above" building 1 on single line? That is not clear to me at least.
Also, adding wire sizes and lengths makes for a better question and answer.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top