Split J box instead of breaker handles and buried conduits.

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

howardrichman

Senior Member
I'll be installing multiple circuits in romex cables and junctioned to be continued in conduit. I'll be using ground fault, 2 pole and a arch fault circuit; so instead of using breaker ties or multi pole breakers; is it permissible to use a split type J box or other approved method to continue those circuits? Also is there a minimum clearance of buried conduits for communications and 120/240v lines as direct cables do ?

Thanks;
HR...
 
Will I have to tie all those breakers together in the main panel if those cables enter and be splice in a single Junction box? If so; what can be done @ the point of splicing those cables in a single box. It's too complicated at the panel to tie those breakers.

HR...
 
The only time you would need breaker handle ties is with MWBC. 14-2 Romex to black,white,green 14 thhn in conduit no breaker handle tie required. Still not sure if this answers your question.
 
howardrichman said:
I'll be installing multiple circuits in romex cables and junctioned to be continued in conduit. I'll be using ground fault, 2 pole and a arch fault circuit; so instead of using breaker ties or multi pole breakers; is it permissible to use a split type J box or other approved method to continue those circuits? Also is there a minimum clearance of buried conduits for communications and 120/240v lines as direct cables do ?

Thanks;
HR...
Click to expand...

This is about as clear as mud. Maybe a picture would help. If you've got a mwbc there's no way getting around 210.4(b)
 
howardrichman said:
Will I have to tie all those breakers together in the main panel if those cables enter and be splice in a single Junction box? If so; what can be done @ the point of splicing those cables in a single box.

HR...
Click to expand...

No, the fact that the multiple circuits are in one JB is irrelevant to the MWBC requirements. If all of your circuits have their own neutral then handle ties are not required.
 
Well; In 210.4B states all ungrounded conductors will be disconnected simultaneously. Is that for box w/ device, or just a junction box w/multiple 120/240v circuits?

HR...

Also, what is MWBC ?
 
howardrichman said:
Well; In 210.4B states all ungrounded conductors will be disconnected simultaneously. Is that for box w/ device, or just a junction box w/multiple 120/240v circuits?

HR...

Also, what is MWBC ?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how the circuit ends or what it does. If it's a mwbc it needs to be opened all together at the source
 
MWBC = Multi-wire branch circuit.
Easiest way to describe is the refer you to Art 100, Branch Circuit, Multiwire.

as noted, 210.4 applies to multi-wire branch circuits so if you are using individual neutrals there is no need for simultaneous disconnection.
 
A nice graphic from Mike Holt:

205ecmCQfig2.gif
 
infinity said:
A nice graphic from Mike Holt:

205ecmCQfig2.gif
Click to expand...

OK ; I understand. I'm not sure why having equal # of neutrals would allow it to conform and not need to disconnect all ungrounded conductors. To me seeing a MWBC circuit (red and black) in an outlet or junction box would USUALLY let me know there's another line coming into that box and to be aware, but w/ multiple neutrals, it's easier to make mistakes if not tagged properly. Also , would there be a minimum requirement to the spacing of separate underground conduits for communications and 120/240v?

HR...
 
Having multiple circuits sharing a junction box is very common and permissible as long as they're originating from the same source.

It's a very good idea to keep circuits labeled and bundled but it's not required to idiot proof neutrals from being screwed up by a hack down the line.
 
dielectricunion said:
Having multiple circuits sharing a junction box is very common and permissible as long as they're originating from the same source.

It's a very good idea to keep circuits labeled and bundled but it's not required to idiot proof neutrals from being screwed up by a hack down the line.
Click to expand...

Are you saying from the same source to help keep it idiot proof?
 
dielectricunion said:
Having multiple circuits sharing a junction box is very common and permissible as long as they're originating from the same source.

It's a very good idea to keep circuits labeled and bundled but it's not required to idiot proof neutrals from being screwed up by a hack down the line.
Click to expand...
New requirement in 2014 - 200.4(B):

Where more than one neutral conductor associated with different circuits is in an enclosure, grounded circuit conductors of each circuit shall be identified or grouped to correspond with the ungrounded circuit conductor(s) by wire markers, cable ties, or similar means in at least one location within the enclosure.

If you have multiple neutrals in an enclosure you now need to somehow identify which neutral goes with which ungrounded conductor(s).
A situation of having a raceway for home runs and splicing onto conductors in cables or even raceways containing only one circuit does provide enough distinction to know which neutral goes with which ungrounded conductor(s) and requires no further identification.

I know this maybe borders on the NEC becoming a design manual, but is a rule that does make more sense then some of those questionable design manual rules, and in most instances does not create much extra work for the installer, but definitely does help the guy that comes along later to figure out what he has to work with.
 
Thanks for reply, so in all; splicing MWBC in a single box (2 feeders w /1 neutral) will need a breaker tie, but feeders w/ separate neutrals will not, but will have to be identified.
Thanks for reply;
HR...
 
howardrichman said:
Thanks for reply, so in all; splicing MWBC in a single box (2 feeders w /1 neutral) will need a breaker tie, but feeders w/ separate neutrals will not, but will have to be identified.
Thanks for reply;
HR...
Click to expand...
Your terminology use doesn't help (use of word feeder when talking about a branch circuit) but I think we understand what you are trying to say.

A MWBC requires multipole breaker or handle ties whether it is spliced in a downstream box or not. This was not always the rule in the past, but I believe since 2008(?) has been the rule for all MWBC's

Feeders have long required multipole breaker or disconnect. I think there are some instances though where more then one feeder can share the same neutral though it is not a general practice. But the rule is in art 200 so it applies to branch circuits as well as feeders, had the rule been in art 210 it would apply to branch circuits but not necessarily to feeders.
 
kwired said:
Your terminology use doesn't help (use of word feeder when talking about a branch circuit) but I think we understand what you are trying to say.

A MWBC requires multipole breaker or handle ties whether it is spliced in a downstream box or not. This was not always the rule in the past, but I believe since 2008(?) has been the rule for all MWBC's

Feeders have long required multipole breaker or disconnect. I think there are some instances though where more then one feeder can share the same neutral though it is not a general practice. But the rule is in art 200 so it applies to branch circuits as well as feeders, had the rule been in art 210 it would apply to branch circuits but not necessarily to feeders.
Click to expand...

Your right, I didn't mean feeders, but I know what your saying about MWBC.

HR...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top