Service and Feeders next size up breaker 230.95

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jpflex

Jpflex

Electrician big leagues
Location
Victorville
Occupation
Electrician commercial and residential
What I don’t understand is how feeders or service conductors can be protected by the next larger standard size breaker when the ampacity of the feeder or service does not correspond to a standard breaker when not more than 800 amperes

I say this because one of the requirements is that the feeder:

1) conductors being protected are NOT part of a branch circuit supplying more than one RECEPTACLE FOR CORD AND PLUG CONNECTED PORTABLE LOADS 240.4 (B)

Therefore, every dwelling i know has the feeders or services part of such receptacle loads. The services and feeders have continuity to multiple receptacle loads via main panel and branch circuits
 
infinity said:
The multiple receptacle limit would only be for the branch circuits.
Click to expand...
Yes but the feeders and services supply the receptacles and therefore are “PART OF THE BRANCH CIRCUIT SUPPLYING MORE THAN ONE RECEPTACLE.”

Since most dwellings have branch circuits supplying more than one receptacle how can you be NEC code compliant when protecting a feeder or service conductor with the next larger breaker over the ampacity of the conductor which does not pertain to a standard breaker?
 
Jpflex said:
Yes but the feeders and services supply the receptacles and therefore are “PART OF THE BRANCH CIRCUIT SUPPLYING MORE THAN ONE RECEPTACLE.”

Since most dwellings have branch circuits supplying more than one receptacle how can you be NEC code compliant when protecting a feeder or service conductor with the next larger breaker over the ampacity of the conductor which does not pertain to a standard breaker?
Click to expand...
In a single family dwelling you are going to use the load calcs to determine the size of the service/feeder conductors not the number of receptacles. The average house is not going to draw the kind of loads that a commercial site will.
 
Jpflex said:
Yes but the feeders and services supply the receptacles and therefore are “PART OF THE BRANCH CIRCUIT SUPPLYING MORE THAN ONE RECEPTACLE.”

Since most dwellings have branch circuits supplying more than one receptacle how can you be NEC code compliant when protecting a feeder or service conductor with the next larger breaker over the ampacity of the conductor which does not pertain to a standard breaker?
Click to expand...
The OCPD ahead of the feeder is not protecting the branch circuit conductors, the branch circuit OCPD is proving that protection so the fact that you may have a multi-receptacle circuit after the feeder OCPD is not relevant.
 
Jpflex said:
Yes but the feeders and services supply the receptacles and therefore are “PART OF THE BRANCH CIRCUIT SUPPLYING MORE THAN ONE RECEPTACLE.”

Since most dwellings have branch circuits supplying more than one receptacle how can you be NEC code compliant when protecting a feeder or service conductor with the next larger breaker over the ampacity of the conductor which does not pertain to a standard breaker?
Click to expand...
Please see the Article 100 definition of branch circuit. The branch circuit starts at the load side of the branch circuit overcurrent protective device. The feeder is on the supply side of the branch circuit OCPD.
 
infinity said:
The OCPD ahead of the feeder is not protecting the branch circuit conductors, the branch circuit OCPD is proving that protection so the fact that you may have a multi-receptacle circuit after the feeder OCPD is not relevant.
Click to expand...
Then what is meant by:

Feeder conductors being protected are NOT part of a branch circuit supplying more than one RECEPTACLE FOR CORD AND PLUG CONNECTED PORTABLE LOADS 240.4 (B)

How then can a feeder that is to be separately identified from a branch circuit to be part of a branch circuit? This NEC wording makes no sense
 
Clearly there is a continuous circuit from the source transformer, through the service conductors, through any feeder conductors, to the final OCPD which supplies the branch circuit conductors, then back through the feeder, the service conductors, and back to the transformer.

Therefore in a strict sense the feeder conductors are part of the circuit feeding the receptacles.

You have to go by the definitions as used in the code. The 'branch circuit' starts at the final OCPD and continues to the load(s). The conductors upstream of this final OCPD are feeder or service conductors, and by the NEC definition as used in the code these conductors are not part of the branch circuit.

-Jon
 
What does 230.95 have to do with any of this?

Secondly, you need to read the definitions

Feeder. All circuit conductors between the service equipment,
the source of a separately derived system, or other power
supply source and the final branch-circuit overcurrent device.
Click to expand...

Branch Circuit. The circuit conductors between the final overcurrent
device protecting the circuit and the outlet(s).
Click to expand...
 
Normally a
infinity said:
The multiple receptacle limit would only be for the branch circuits.
Click to expand...
20 ampere 120 volt circuit would be limited to 13.33 or 13 receptacles since each receptacle rated at 180 VA

20 x 120 = 2400 VA/ 180 VA = 13.33 receptacles or 13 receptacles per 20 ampere circuit where this portion of code pertains to makes no sense. How can a feeder be part of a branch circuit having not more than 1 receptacle for cord and plug loads?
 
Dennis Alwon said:
What does 230.95 have to do with any of this?

Secondly, you need to read the definitions
Click to expand...
I get the feeder and branch circuit distinctions but I do not understand:

Feeder conductors being protected must NOT be part of a branch circuit supplying more than one RECEPTACLE FOR CORD AND PLUG CONNECTED PORTABLE LOADS 240.4 (B)

In order to qualify to use the next breaker size up, the feeder must not be part of such a branch circuit. What circumstances would make this true?
 
Jpflex said:
I get the feeder and branch circuit distinctions but I do not understand:

Feeder conductors being protected must NOT be part of a branch circuit supplying more than one RECEPTACLE FOR CORD AND PLUG CONNECTED PORTABLE LOADS 240.4 (B)

In order to qualify to use the next breaker size up, the feeder must not be part of such a branch circuit. What circumstances would make this true?
Click to expand...
Or when does a feeder become “PART” of a branch circuit?
 
Jpflex said:
I get the feeder and branch circuit distinctions but I do not understand:

Feeder conductors being protected must NOT be part of a branch circuit supplying more than one RECEPTACLE FOR CORD AND PLUG CONNECTED PORTABLE LOADS 240.4 (B)
Click to expand...
This is a misquote. The word "feeder" does not occur in 240.4 until you hit 240.4(E). 240.4(B) just talks about "conductors," and is telling you that branch circuit conductors supplying more than one receptacle may not use the allowance of 240.4(B). Other branch circuit conductors, or feeders, may use the allowance of 240.4(B).

Cheers, Wayne
 
As Wayne says, you are not reading and quoting the section correctly, you are adding a word. The actual wording is.
(1) The conductors being protected are not part of a branch
circuit supplying more than one receptacle for cord and-
plug-connected portable loads.
Click to expand...
 
It is possible for a single device to simultaneously be subject to multiple portions of the NEC.

For example, a 45A breaker may be considered a branch circuit protection device when it feeds multiple receptacles, say for welders or campsites. But that same 45A circuit is also considered a feeder circuit when it also feeds a 15A branch breaker for a convenience outlet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top