Paralled breakers

Status
Not open for further replies.

RAF

Member
I have an interesting situation where using paralleled breakers would solve a problem. We are adding air conditioning to an older two story dorm at a private university. Presently, it is heated by electric strips but with the installation of the chiller and the necessary piiping, steam will be used for heating using the two pipe system.

The problem is getting sufficient power for the 18Ton chiller. Presently, there are two panelboards mounted side by side, each fed from a pad mount transformer across the street. These feed the existing strip heat and some miscellaneous other loads. The new chiller requires a MOCP of 125A. The above panelboards can only accommodate a maximum of a 100A feeder breaker. Neither panelboard alone could support the chiller load.

What is proposed is to add a 100A breaker in each panel and use both feeders to feed a 200A disconnect fused at 125A. Each feeder would be sized at 1/0, the minimum conductor size for paralleled conductors. Distance is something over 100 ft. I can?t see anything in the code that would prohibit such an installation. The configuration would evenly split the load between the two panelboards. Should one breaker trip or the load become significantly unbalanced, the breakers would trip on overload. The disconnect would be marked as fed from multiple sources, etc.

I have used this before in a power generator application where we used parallel 3000A breakers and it was very successful.

Any thought on this application? The alternative is to dig up the road and add an additional service, which would be quite expensive.
 
Re: Paralled breakers

Strip out the two panelboards and install a single panelboard. Now you don't have to dig up the street and you can use the proper sized circuit breaker. :D
 
Re: Paralled breakers

Article 240.8 and 300.3(B) for two reasons.

Roger
 
Re: Paralled breakers

THANKS! That [240.8] was right under my nose.

Maybe I can convince them to use a slightly smaller chiller. My previous use of parallel breakers likely fell under "factory assembled."

Thanks again.
 
Re: Paralled breakers

You are welcome.

Roger
 
Re: Paralled breakers

I wanted to think about it a little before giving reasons. The 240.8 that Roger mentioned was the one I thought of. I think there are two reasons for this rule:

1). You don't really know that the current will split evenly between the two breakers.
2). If one breaker does trip, you have an overload on the other breaker and wire. And if the other breaker malfunctions, that's not good.

I hadn't even thought of 300.3.

Also, it sounds like this would be paralleling two utility transformer secondaries. That provides a chance to backfeed one, which could be quite a suprise to a utility worker. And what if the taps are set different - one provides 205 volts, while the other one provides 210 volts.

There are probably other reasons we haven't thought of.

Can you shuffle some loads from one panel to the other panel to make power available??
Steve

[ May 23, 2005, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: steve66 ]
 
Re: Paralled breakers

or like people above said, new panel that could handle a breaker of that size. We ran into the same problem, can you get feed through lugs and insall a subpanel directly next to the existing panel feeding a main breaker?
 
Re: Paralled breakers

This type installation is not allowed by 240.8. A parallel conductor installation requires both sets of conductors to be supplied from the same overcurrent device and terminate at the same terminals at the load (See 310.4).What you would have doing it your way is one load with two separate supplies. De-energizing one breaker still leaves the load energized.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top