Why only 1 BC to other building?

[Twoskinsoneman]

You need to check Art 225.30 in regard to the number of circuits and 250.32 reference grounding.

This statement by augie47 got me thinking about the concept behind the rule.

II. More Than One Building or Other Structure
225.30 Number of Supplies. Where more than one building
or other structure is on the same property and under
single management, each additional building or other structure
that is served by a branch circuit or feeder on the load
side of the service disconnecting means shall be supplied
by only one feeder or branch circuit unless permitted in
225.30(A) through (E). For the purpose of this section, a
multiwire branch circuit shall be considered a single circuit.


My question is why? Let's say you've got one BC already going out to separate building and you decide you'd like one more...

Where is the hazard?

 

[augie47]

Why only 1 service to a building ? (with exceptios, of course)
I guess the same "safety" logic would apply in regard to truning off power to a building.

 

[Twoskinsoneman]

It doesn't add up. I can have a separate building with 6 disconnects off of a feeder right?

It doesn't make sense that I couldn't run 6 circuits to those six disconnects.

 

[augie47]

I would agree with that. As long as you complied with 225.33 it would seem like one could elect to run multiple branch circuits in lieu of a feeder.

 

[raider1]

I disagree that you could run 6 circuits to a building and meet the requirements of 225.30.

You can run a single feeder and then install a panel with no more than 6 breakers, but you could not run 6 circuits and install 6 disconnects.

225.30 is pretty clear that you are only permitted to supply a detached building or structure with a single feeder or branch circuit unless you meet one of the conditions listed in 225.30.

Chris

 

[charlie b]

I disagree that you could run 6 circuits to a building and meet the requirements of 225.30.

I don't think that is what Gus meant. He didn't say it would be compliant. He was conjecturing that it is equivalent, from a safety perspective.

 

[raider1]

I don't think that is what Gus meant. He didn't say it would be compliant. He was conjecturing that it is equivalent, from a safety perspective.

You are right, after re-reading the thread I see that.

Chris