Sizing of fuses in service disconnect

Status
Not open for further replies.
Out of curiosity...have you ever seen it done my way and been turned down?

You can perform the experiment yourself. Just call the inspector and explain what you have done and what we are saying and ask him/her to make a ruling. We would all be interested in what s/he says.
 
As i said, i understand your concern in regards to 408, and i respect your opinion. You give good advice on this forum. But for this one, you can tell me im wrong till your blue in the face. Ill keep doing it till they take the (S) out of the 10ft tap rule

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

The tap rule stuff has to do with the tap conductors. It has nothing to do with the protection required in 408 - you still have to comply with 408.36
 
That's why i stopped working for the man.

Out of curiosity...have you ever seen it done my way and been turned down?

No I have not but I have seen similar installations where a panelboard was MLO and fed from a transformer, and thank you for the compliment.
 
Ok. Tap rule states RATING of EQUIPMENT containing an over current device(S). My panel is the equipment that is rated, and i have overcurrent devices. My 400 amp is a single point of disconnect, so no more than 6 disconnects.

You've got me a little on the 225 mlo when i use 3/0, and on a 400 amp disco. But that's just what came from the supply house when i ordered a 200 MLO.

As i said, i understand your concern in regards to 408, and i respect your opinion. You give good advice on this forum. But for this one, you can tell me im wrong till your blue in the face. Ill keep doing it till they take the (S) out of the 10ft tap rule

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I hate to pile on, but the installation as described in your post #5 is not code compliant. There are some very well trained folks here. Use it as a learning experience. This area of the code has been this way for decades. Any competent inspector should have seen this from a mile away. The fact that an inspector did not catch it does not make it compliant or make you safe from legal action.
 
I hate to pile on,

...but let me unbuckle my belt anyways.


We're all big boys here. No need to use platitudes with me. Its like saying "no offense", than offending. Nobody needs that in their life.

But I see and understand everyone's point. It's well recieved. I wouldn't be on this forum if i wasn't interested "learning experiences". I'll be having a few discussions about this tomorrow.

Worst case Ontario ill be buying a 1,000 bucks worth of sqaure d main breakers and making the rounds. As you alluded to, my liability insurance will only cover so much stupid




Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Lets keep in mind the OP question has to do with service entrance conductors.

Now the other parallel discussion seems to be dealing with article 240/ There are no Tap rules when it comes to service entrance conductors
 
What size fuses need to be installed in a service disconnect that feeds 2 240V 100A rated main lug only panels? I think they would be 100A fuses but others are telling me 200A.

If the panel is rated at 100 amps not 125 amps than as others stated Max of 100 amps with 100 amp service entrance conductors
 
...but let me unbuckle my belt anyways.


We're all big boys here. No need to use platitudes with me. Its like saying "no offense", than offending. Nobody needs that in their life.

But I see and understand everyone's point. It's well recieved. I wouldn't be on this forum if i wasn't interested "learning experiences". I'll be having a few discussions about this tomorrow.

Worst case Ontario ill be buying a 1,000 bucks worth of sqaure d main breakers and making the rounds. As you alluded to, my liability insurance will only cover so much stupid




Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Sorry, I did not mean to come across that way. Glad to hear you have an interest in further discussion about it.
 
Lets keep in mind the OP question has to do with service entrance conductors.

Now the other parallel discussion seems to be dealing with article 240/ There are no Tap rules when it comes to service entrance conductors

I don't see it that way. Seems pretty clear that feeders (maybe feeder taps) were what was going on and relevant.
 
Are you not familiar with tap rules?
40 years ago it was quite common to find MLO panels fed directly from transformer secondaries. However, over the years the NEC has changed, so something learned years ago may no longer be proper.
In particular the tap rules for transformers, 240.21(C) now has limits on the overcurrent protective device at the end of the tap. Lighting and Appliance Branch Circuit panels required main device almost for ever, but power panels did not. This has been changed with the addition of 408.36. I almost feel like a hypocrite sometimes, when I assess code violations at installations I did decades ago.


The OP was not about service conductors and it was not about tap rules. It was about sizing fuses in a service disconnect feeding panelboards. Without knowing anything about the conductors, the correct answer has been given with the reference to 408.36.
 
Ok. Tap rule states RATING of EQUIPMENT containing an over current device(S). My panel is the equipment that is rated, and i have overcurrent devices. My 400 amp is a single point of disconnect, so no more than 6 disconnects.

You've got me a little on the 225 mlo when i use 3/0, and on a 400 amp disco. But that's just what came from the supply house when i ordered a 200 MLO.

As i said, i understand your concern in regards to 408, and i respect your opinion. You give good advice on this forum. But for this one, you can tell me im wrong till your blue in the face. Ill keep doing it till they take the (S) out of the 10ft tap rule

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I agree the wording in the 10 foot tap rule is not the greatest. Actually they recently changed it so its better but still not perfect IMO, but apparently the intent is that the tap terminates on an OCPD. Here is a summary of the change I pulled off the web:
The change in 240.21(B)(1)(1)(b) makes it clear that the tap conductor ampacity cannot be less than the rating of the equipment containing an overcurrent device(s) supplied by the tap conductors or not less than the rating of the overcurrent protective device at the termination of the tap conductors.

The previous code language allowed the tap conductor ampacity to be rated no less than the “device” supplied by the tap conductors. This was misleading and opened the door to the idea that a tap conductor could be without any overcurrent protection at the load end of the conductor if it supplied a device rather than an overcurrent device.

A new exception was also added to address tap conductors supplying listed equipment such as surge protective devices (SPD). For these types of devices, simply follow the manufacturer’s installation instructions.

Below is a preview of the NEC. See the actual NEC text at NFPA.ORG for the complete code section. Once there, click on the “free access” tab and select the applicable year of NFPA 70 (National Electrical code).

2011 Code Language:

240.21(B)(1).

(1) The ampacity of the tap conductors is:

Not less than the combined calculated loads on the circuits supplied by the tap conductors, and
Not less than the rating of the device supplied by the tap conductors or not less than the rating of the overcurrent protective device at the termination of the tap conductors.




2014 Code Language:

240.21(B)(1).

(1) The ampacity of the tap conductors is:

Not less than the combined calculated loads on the circuits supplied by the tap conductors, and
Not less than the rating of the equipment containing an overcurrent device(s) supplied by the tap conductors or not less than the rating of the overcurrent protective device at the termination of the tap conductors.
Exception to b: Where listed equipment, such as a surge protective device(s) [SPD(s)], is provided with specific instructions on minimum conductor sizing, the ampacity of the tap conductors supplying that equipment shall be permitted to be determined based on the manufacturer’s instructions.
 
Why? I just did a 400 amp service split into two 225amp mlo panels. I ran 500 into a wireway, than tapped down to 3/0 per 240.21(b)1. All went well at inspection.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

After reading this very carefully, a few times, I believe this is a violation because the situation described above is not a feeder, it is a service. The Code reference given was for Feeders. Unless, WarrMann corrects me and tells me there was a 400A OCPD ahead of the 500 MCM, I believe this is a violation.

Mark
 
Ok, tried to see both sides here. know many on here would consider me a student or a trunk slammer. But, in my own mind, reading and knowing what I know of codes and of the electrical stuff in three countries... I would say that the OP needs to use 100 amp protection for the panels themselves if they are 100 amp bus panels. If they are 125 amp, then he uses 125 amp... If he has a fused disconnect at the meter then he uses the 100 or 125 amp there.. to protect the wires.
the other person with the 400 amp service.. same difference... it does not matter what meter service you use, just that the wires and the bus be protected at the proper amperage.

I actually size my wires from meter area to house main panel based upon the bus size of the main panel, no matter what size main breaker I put on it, because I was once blamed for a situation where I set everything up as the customer wanted.. they supplied me a 200 amp panel with a 100 amp main breaker... they then later added some circuits and changed the main breaker to 200 amps, putting the 100 amp breaker on a sub panel... all using someone else... Fire happened, I got called by the authorities... because they said I did all the work... since no one was listed for doing the changes...
Luckily, I had JPG s of reciepts, and of the actual install... so could prove it was not me made the changes... but that was the last time I installed main feed smaller than the bus size of the panel, no matter what the main breaker was.
 
After reading this very carefully, a few times, I believe this is a violation because the situation described above is not a feeder, it is a service. The Code reference given was for Feeders. Unless, WarrMann corrects me and tells me there was a 400A OCPD ahead of the 500 MCM, I believe this is a violation.

He mentioned a 400A ocpd, the 500mcm is a feeder. The tap and the panelboard protection are both in violation of the Code.
 
Why? I just did a 400 amp service split into two 225amp mlo panels. I ran 500 into a wireway, than tapped down to 3/0 per 240.21(b)1. All went well at inspection.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

He mentioned a 400A ocpd, the 500mcm is a feeder. The tap and the panelboard protection are both in violation of the Code.

I think Bussman was referring to post #5
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top