Parallel run for small wires

Charlypt said:
We need to feed an existing subpanel and increase its capacity from 60 to 100A. The feed comes through a 3/4" conduit, and there are spare conduits.
...
Click to expand...

jap said:
I meant, what load was being added to the 60a Subpanel that's requiring it to be upsized from 60 to 100 amps?

Just curious,

Jap>
Click to expand...

What about serving the additional loads with a second subpanel that is fed through a spare conduit?
 
Sberry said:
This sounds like both ungrounded conductors of single phase, wouldnt have considered this simply on the basis I want the ground wire and the N wire running with the ungrounded in same pipe cable or raceway. Sounds like,,, well we simply want to avoid running a new pipe which might be the easy way. Sometimes digging a ditch is easier too.
Click to expand...
It involves cutting asphalt, concrete, floors, and drilling through walls in an historic building.
 
synchro said:
What about serving the additional loads with a second subpanel that is fed through a spare conduit?
Click to expand...
I infer Article 225 applies. In which case this requires that the NEC version be 2020 or later to allow the use of 225.30(B) "Common Supply Equipment"; the second feeder or branch circuit would have to originate in the same panel as the existing feeder; and the new circuit would need a disconnect grouped with the disconnect for the existing feeder.

Cheers, Wayne
 
curt swartz said:
They would still need to comply with the non-ferrous entry into the enclosures on each side.
Click to expand...
Yes, as I commented in my first post in this thread.

curt swartz said:
With residential grade load centers it not as easy to modify them.
Click to expand...
Seems like you could use a row of prepunched KOs of the correct size and cut a small slot between the KOs, without compromising the structure of the enclosure? Would non-ferrous locknuts be required?

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
If the conduit is all non-ferrous, and any entry to a ferrous enclosure is through a common non-ferrous window, what is proposed is allowed under 300.3(B)(3).

300.3(B)(1) is not relevant, as the proposed installation does not have any parallel conductors. 300.3(B)(1) Exception is redundant to 300.3(B)(3).

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
But then what is allowed by 300.3(B)(3)?
 
With no more load than there seems to be, If there's spare conduits from the Main Panel to the sub panel location , why not re-route one of those spare conduits and feed the new load from a branch circuit from the main panel?

Just a thought,

Jap
 
wwhitney said:
The configuration proposed in your OP, among other things, as long as you take care of complying with 300.20(B).

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
So if I have to cite the code, it would be 300.3(B)(3).
Now, the PVC connector entering the panel wouldn't be enough to comply with 300.20, correct?
 
jap said:
With no more load than there seems to be, If there's spare conduits from the Main Panel to the sub panel location , why not re-route one of those spare conduits and feed the new load from a branch circuit from the main panel?

Just a thought,

Jap
Click to expand...
Yes, there are more loads. Lights, 120V receptacles (2 circuits), and one 240V receptacle.
I could keep the existing subpanel for this and separate the AC with a dedicated circuit.
But someone mentioned that I would have to disconnect both circuits at the same time, although I don't see why. Let me ask.
 
wwhitney said:
I infer Article 225 applies. In which case this requires that the NEC version be 2020 or later to allow the use of 225.30(B) "Common Supply Equipment"; the second feeder or branch circuit would have to originate in the same panel as the existing feeder; and the new circuit would need a disconnect grouped with the disconnect for the existing feeder.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
If I keep the existing subpanel and separate the air conditioning with a dedicated circuit, would I still have to disconnect both circuits together?
 
Charlypt said:
If I keep the existing subpanel and separate the air conditioning with a dedicated circuit, would I still have to disconnect both circuits together?
Click to expand...
No, "grouped" means at the same location (next to each other), not simultaneous with a single action. I take it this is a separate structure, so Article 225 applies to the supplies to this structure?

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
No, "grouped" means at the same location (next to each other), not simultaneous with a single action. I take it this is a separate structure, so Article 225 applies to the supplies to this structure?

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
Oh, okay. I just read the article. Thank you.
Then I could use that idea, a dedicated circuit for AC, while the breakers are grouped in the same panel.
 
synchro said:
What about serving the additional loads with a second subpanel that is fed through a spare conduit?
Click to expand...
Not a second subpanel, but a separate circuit. I'll keep the existing subpanel and separate the air conditioning with a dedicated circuit. Thanks for the idea.
 
jap said:
With no more load than there seems to be, If there's spare conduits from the Main Panel to the sub panel location , why not re-route one of those spare conduits and feed the new load from a branch circuit from the main panel?

Just a thought,

Jap
Click to expand...
Thanks for the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top