Redundant 120VAC circuits and 210.7

[fun ee]

Looking at tying the hots together on a terminal strip as well as neutrals on another terminal strip from two 120Vac branch circuits (same hot from 120/240V panel). Per 210.7, if the two pole disconnect is used break these two hots simultaneously is adjacent to 120V/240V panel, what labeling is required by Code (Section number please) so that people understand backfeed hazard between for the short run between two pole disconnect and 120/240V panelboard. Or is the installation itself in violation of code (Section number please).

Thanks Again

 

[iwire]

Looking at tying the hots together on a terminal strip as well as neutrals on another terminal strip from two 120Vac branch circuits (same hot from 120/240V panel). Per 210.7, if the two pole disconnect is used break these two hots simultaneously is adjacent to 120V/240V panel, what labeling is required by Code (Section number please) so that people understand backfeed hazard between for the short run between two pole disconnect and 120/240V panelboard. Or is the installation itself in violation of code (Section number please).

Thanks Again

I am not sure I understand the installation but it sounds like a violation of parallel conductor rules and parallel over current device rules.

240.8 Fuses or Circuit Breakers in Parallel. Fuses and
circuit breakers shall be permitted to be connected in parallel
where they are factory assembled in parallel and listed
as a unit. Individual fuses, circuit breakers, or combinations
thereof shall not otherwise be connected in paral1el.

310.10(H) Conductors in Parallel.
(1) General. Aluminum, copper-clad aluminum, or copper
conductors, for each phasc, polarity, neutral, or grounded
circuit shall be permitted to be connected in parallel (electrically
joined at both ends) only in sizes 1/0 AWG and
larger where installed in accordance with 310.1 0(H)(2)
through (H)(6).

It continues, it might be worth a look.

What is it you are trying to accomplish?

 

[fun ee]

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks that helps, I was cringing when I saw this desire to tie together. But it would be best to remove this option with technical rationale than my emotional response.

They are trying to remove a single point of failure for their system for a loose terminal in a control panel. Another thoughts is to have a single branch circuit with parallel wiring (sized to run on a single conductor) and have single point failure inside breaker panel (less likely to be opened and worked on).

Also circuit breaker in the code is UL 449 device right? Thus you can put supplementary over current protection devices (UL 1077) devices in parallel correct and still be code valid?

Thanks Again