My friend recently asked me to help him with his outside sign, which was ON all of the time. The contractor merely forgot to tie in the circuit to the timer but, while I was tracing out the wiring, I noticed the Electrical Contractor, which installed the wiring in his new store, pulled individual neutrals with each circuit, a good thing! The other thing I noticed was that he decided to tie all of theses neutrals together? I know this is not a good practice for many reasons but I would like to know the code, if there is one that prevents this? I only had the opportunity to check four junction boxes and all were the same. Multiple conductors with individual neutrals tied together, I?m not as concerned with two conductors and two neutrals tied together, even though it might confuse the next electrician who tries to work on the store, the contractor might just say he was doubling the neutral size like so many do for computer heavy applications. I?m concerned he might have done the same for three or more circuits and since the store is a Laundry Mat with a lot of electronics. There might be a chance that when and if someone works on these circuits live, he may damage some of the electronics inside the store. Has Cook County implemented neutral tracers for individual circuits? In the two circuit two neutral scenario should the two neutral wires be identified as one in the panel and or at all junction boxes for safety?
Multiple Neutrals Not Separated Chicago Code / NEC
- Thread starter roygbiv
- Start date
- Status
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: Multiple Neutrals Not Separated Chicago Code / NEC
If he tied all these neutrals together before they reached the neutral buss then he could be causing an overload on each neutral that has two or more circuits being fed from the same phase. While there is no code that does not permit this if the neutral is sized for this load it is not a good idea. The only time I think the neutral is required to be marked is when you have two or more neutrals in a j-box that originate from different panels or systems. There is no requirement for the marking of a neutral on a multi-wire circuit.
If he tied all these neutrals together before they reached the neutral buss then he could be causing an overload on each neutral that has two or more circuits being fed from the same phase. While there is no code that does not permit this if the neutral is sized for this load it is not a good idea. The only time I think the neutral is required to be marked is when you have two or more neutrals in a j-box that originate from different panels or systems. There is no requirement for the marking of a neutral on a multi-wire circuit.
Re: Multiple Neutrals Not Separated Chicago Code / NEC
Thanks Wayne, I would have looked it up myself but I recently borrowed my codebook to someone else ?8 months ago? and it has not been returned yet. I probably should have kept my old ones or maybe I?ll have to buy a new one? I'm currently considering joining the International Association of Electrical Inspectors as an associate member. I was a member in the early 80's but was not too impressed with some of the inspectors I met, the speakers were extremely knowledgeable but some of its members I felt, did not get a good grasp of what was going on. I recently visited their forum in Illinois and was shocked that there were only 3 topics and 1 reply on the whole forum? Maybe they?ve improved so much they have no questions? I would really like to meet the inspector that passed my buddies store, there is much more involved other than the wiring problems I?ve addressed.
Thanks Wayne, I would have looked it up myself but I recently borrowed my codebook to someone else ?8 months ago? and it has not been returned yet. I probably should have kept my old ones or maybe I?ll have to buy a new one? I'm currently considering joining the International Association of Electrical Inspectors as an associate member. I was a member in the early 80's but was not too impressed with some of the inspectors I met, the speakers were extremely knowledgeable but some of its members I felt, did not get a good grasp of what was going on. I recently visited their forum in Illinois and was shocked that there were only 3 topics and 1 reply on the whole forum? Maybe they?ve improved so much they have no questions? I would really like to meet the inspector that passed my buddies store, there is much more involved other than the wiring problems I?ve addressed.
Re: Multiple Neutrals Not Separated Chicago Code / NEC
Jeff, draw it out, it puts all the connected neutrals in parallel back to the panel, and any route they take (if not side by side) will at least see net currents (EMF issues) even without conductor overloading coming into play.
Roger
Jeff, draw it out, it puts all the connected neutrals in parallel back to the panel, and any route they take (if not side by side) will at least see net currents (EMF issues) even without conductor overloading coming into play.
Roger
scott moran
Member
Re: Multiple Neutrals Not Separated Chicago Code / NEC
Roy, are you in Chicago proper or in the suburbs. Some of them follow NEC and some follow the Chicago Electrical Code. Nobody, however, requires that all of the neutrals be tied together in the junction boxes. What town did this occur in. And how do you know it was even inspected. If this was a remodel it could have been done on the fly.......
Scott Moran
Hickory Hills, IL
Roy, are you in Chicago proper or in the suburbs. Some of them follow NEC and some follow the Chicago Electrical Code. Nobody, however, requires that all of the neutrals be tied together in the junction boxes. What town did this occur in. And how do you know it was even inspected. If this was a remodel it could have been done on the fly.......
Scott Moran
Hickory Hills, IL
Re: Multiple Neutrals Not Separated Chicago Code / NEC
Scott,
Thanks for the response; I appreciate any and all input. I'm still trying to convince my friend to have the problems corrected by the Electrical Contractor. Since the job is an existing storefront, it might technically be considered a remodel, I?m really not sure? I personally would be of the opinion that since the storefront was completely gutted and redone it should be considered New Construction but, that?s only my opinion. I?m sorry but at this time I?d rather not reveal the town that the work was done in but I can tell you that I did work for a major corporation in the same town, back in ?97 and in the ?Town Proper? they did adopt the Chicago Electrical Code. The store is located in an unincorporated portion of this town which is located in ?Cook County? and I was always under the impression that unincorporated sections of Cook County also adopt the Chicago Electrical Code, correct me if I?m wrong, I?m always trying to learn. As for the electrical inspections, I can?t say that I was actually present when the electrical inspector made his final inspection nor was I present during any subsequent electrical inspections but I can tell you that the proper permits were pulled and posted. I know the job was stopped on at least ?3? occasions, the first was to address the sewer capacity and the second was to address the incoming gas line. Both of which needed to be extensively corrected and would have been pretty hard to get accomplished in Cook County without the proper permits being issued. When the store had no activity for the third time, I asked my friend what the hold up was, he responded he was waiting for the Electrical Inspectors Approval, since I am not affiliated with any government office or code enforcement officials and I know he was getting quite frustrated with the previous delays and additional permit approvals, I have no reason to believe he would have let the electrical contractor pull out for several days unless he was genuinely awaiting the electrical inspection. Did the electrical inspector actually inspect the property, I can?t answer that, was he scheduled to inspect, judging by the permits and my friends awaiting his arrival, I would have to think so. If he inspected the property, he didn?t do his job properly, if he gave his approval without being there, he also didn?t do his job properly.
Scott,
Thanks for the response; I appreciate any and all input. I'm still trying to convince my friend to have the problems corrected by the Electrical Contractor. Since the job is an existing storefront, it might technically be considered a remodel, I?m really not sure? I personally would be of the opinion that since the storefront was completely gutted and redone it should be considered New Construction but, that?s only my opinion. I?m sorry but at this time I?d rather not reveal the town that the work was done in but I can tell you that I did work for a major corporation in the same town, back in ?97 and in the ?Town Proper? they did adopt the Chicago Electrical Code. The store is located in an unincorporated portion of this town which is located in ?Cook County? and I was always under the impression that unincorporated sections of Cook County also adopt the Chicago Electrical Code, correct me if I?m wrong, I?m always trying to learn. As for the electrical inspections, I can?t say that I was actually present when the electrical inspector made his final inspection nor was I present during any subsequent electrical inspections but I can tell you that the proper permits were pulled and posted. I know the job was stopped on at least ?3? occasions, the first was to address the sewer capacity and the second was to address the incoming gas line. Both of which needed to be extensively corrected and would have been pretty hard to get accomplished in Cook County without the proper permits being issued. When the store had no activity for the third time, I asked my friend what the hold up was, he responded he was waiting for the Electrical Inspectors Approval, since I am not affiliated with any government office or code enforcement officials and I know he was getting quite frustrated with the previous delays and additional permit approvals, I have no reason to believe he would have let the electrical contractor pull out for several days unless he was genuinely awaiting the electrical inspection. Did the electrical inspector actually inspect the property, I can?t answer that, was he scheduled to inspect, judging by the permits and my friends awaiting his arrival, I would have to think so. If he inspected the property, he didn?t do his job properly, if he gave his approval without being there, he also didn?t do his job properly.
- Location
- Lockport, IL
- Occupation
- Semi-Retired Electrical Engineer
Re: Multiple Neutrals Not Separated Chicago Code / NEC
Turn off one circuit at the breaker. Let us say it serves one and only one light fixture (call it Light #1). Disconnect the hot and neutral wires from the fixture.
Now consider another load, another light (call it Light #2). Current leaves the panel, travels through the hot wire to, and through, Light #2, through the neutral wire to the point at which the neutrals for Light #1 and Light #2 are tied together (call this location ?Point X?) and returns to the panel via the parallel neutral wires.
Now back to Light #1. You touch the ?de-energized? neutral wire with your left hand, and your right hand comes into contact with the metal box to which Light #1 had been mounted. This should have been safe. But you just created an additional parallel path. Current will leave Point X, travel ?backwards? (i.e., back toward Light #1) along the neutral wire, into your left hand, through your upper body and out your right hand, into the metal box, along the conduit (or the EGC) to the main panel?s ground bus, along the bonding jumper to the main panel?s neutral bus, and thereby back to the source.
Will this current be fatal? Probably not. The voltage that is driving current through your body is limited to the voltage drop along the neutral wires from Point X to the source. But is this a safe installation? I would say not. Is it an acceptable design. No. Finally, if I were an Inspector, and desired to red tag this installation, I do not know what code section I would cite as the reason for the red tag.
[ August 06, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: charlie b ]
Turn off one circuit at the breaker. Let us say it serves one and only one light fixture (call it Light #1). Disconnect the hot and neutral wires from the fixture.
Now consider another load, another light (call it Light #2). Current leaves the panel, travels through the hot wire to, and through, Light #2, through the neutral wire to the point at which the neutrals for Light #1 and Light #2 are tied together (call this location ?Point X?) and returns to the panel via the parallel neutral wires.
Now back to Light #1. You touch the ?de-energized? neutral wire with your left hand, and your right hand comes into contact with the metal box to which Light #1 had been mounted. This should have been safe. But you just created an additional parallel path. Current will leave Point X, travel ?backwards? (i.e., back toward Light #1) along the neutral wire, into your left hand, through your upper body and out your right hand, into the metal box, along the conduit (or the EGC) to the main panel?s ground bus, along the bonding jumper to the main panel?s neutral bus, and thereby back to the source.
Will this current be fatal? Probably not. The voltage that is driving current through your body is limited to the voltage drop along the neutral wires from Point X to the source. But is this a safe installation? I would say not. Is it an acceptable design. No. Finally, if I were an Inspector, and desired to red tag this installation, I do not know what code section I would cite as the reason for the red tag.
[ August 06, 2004, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: charlie b ]
- Status