Load Center Wiring Questions

Users who are viewing this thread

Lakee911

I&C Engineer (mostly WWTP)
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Columbus, OH
Am I allowed to double lug (a circuit breaker) for a hardwired secondary surge arrestor?

Considering the fact that the main disconnect is a suitable overcurrent protection device, I could connect the device to the bus bar lugs. The wire size is too small, so how could I fit a #12 wire into a lug designed for something like #1 wire?

Are wire connectors allowed in a panel? I'm replacing a panel and would like to know how to lengthen existing wires if the connectors are not allowed.

Panel is mounted against the wall and the ceiling is low (6.5 or 7ft). Can I bundle the cables (with wire wraps) coming in overhead through one large 2in. knockout and through one cable clamp, or must I bring them in seperately, in conduit? The distance to the ceiling will only be a few inches.

If I mount a 3/4" piece of plywood directly on the masonary block wall with powder actuated fasteners, will 3/4" long fasteners in the plywood alone be adequete to carry the weight of the panel?

Thanks,
Jason
 

Jadnashua

Retired Defense Industry Engineer xxx
Messages
32,771
Reaction score
1,191
Points
113
Location
New England
The supressor I have on my panel specifically states in the installation instructions that it must be on its own breakers (either one 220 or two 110 on separate legs).
 

Chris75

Electrician
Messages
607
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Litchfield, CT
What did the instructions that came with the surge protection say? ;)

and no, you cannot have two wires under one screw...
 

Lakee911

I&C Engineer (mostly WWTP)
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Columbus, OH
It didn't say anything about dedicated breakers on the instructions.

I thought I couldn't have two wires under one screw but an electrician told me otherwise (not that it makes it right). He's a friend, so I didn't want to ask for a code reference.

Jason
 

Bob NH

In the Trades
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
9
Points
0
Location
New Hampshire
All of my new breakers have connections that are designed for one or TWO wires. You can tell if the connection has a small plate under the screw with a place for a wire on each side of the screw.

If your surge protector has wires coming from it and no terminals for mating to the lugs of the panel, then it is made to be wired into a circuit. I would just follow the instructions.

Wire nut connections in the service panel are PERMITTED if there is room, and there is in any modern service panel.
 

Lakee911

I&C Engineer (mostly WWTP)
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Columbus, OH
Ok. Well, that's the panel in question.


What do you all think of the other questions?

Thanks
 

Cass

Plumber
Messages
5,947
Reaction score
7
Points
0
Location
Ohio
What you can't / shouldn't do is put 2 different size wires on the same breaker like taking a #12 and #14 wire and putting it on a 15A breaker. I have found a few situations like this and the #14 becomes loose because of uneven applied torque due to the wire size difference.
 

lampman42

New Member
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Re: Panel Questions.

Can I bundle the cables (with wire wraps) coming in overhead through one large 2in. knockout and through one cable clamp, or must I bring them in seperately, in conduit? The distance to the ceiling will only be a few inches.


No you can only have 3 cables in each knockout. Table 310-16. Unless you de-rate them.



If I mount a 3/4" piece of plywood directly on the masonary block wall with powder actuated fasteners, will 3/4" long fasteners in the plywood alone be adequete to carry the weight of the panel?

I dont like using PAFs I have seen too many services hung up by the riser because the pins come out. I would use tapcons they have never let me down.
 

Lakee911

I&C Engineer (mostly WWTP)
Messages
1,254
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Columbus, OH
Well, you're a few days late, since I already used the pins! I put in seven 1-1/2" pins. I don't think it's going anywhere. I'll keep an eye on it. I'll add tapcons if they start to move.

Jason
 

Mikey

Aspiring Old Fart, EE, computer & networking geek
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Location
Hansville, Washington
Can I bundle the cables (with wire wraps) coming in overhead through one large 2in. knockout and through one cable clamp, or must I bring them in seperately, in conduit? The distance to the ceiling will only be a few inches.

No you can only have 3 cables in each knockout. Table 310-16. Unless you de-rate them.
I would use a short piece of 2" RNC. Then Chapter 9 applies, not 310-16 (300.17 FPN, 352.22). The computation is not simple, depends on the number and size of conductors and types of insulation, and does not apply anyway to "sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring from physical damage." (Note 2 to Table 1.) Every installation I've seen like this uses a couple feet or so of 2" of RNC filled until no more cables will fit. I use a "fill loosely" rule of thumb. I would also run 3 pieces from the panel up to wherever you're going (attic?) to allow for future expansion.

I'd like to hear a real Code junkie's take on this. Maybe there's some wisdom to be found in Mike Holt's forum.
 
Last edited:

Chris75

Electrician
Messages
607
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Litchfield, CT
Can I bundle the cables (with wire wraps) coming in overhead through one large 2in. knockout and through one cable clamp,

No, each cable shall be secured to the cabinet. Some connectors will allow two cables in each connector...


or must I bring them in seperately, in conduit? The distance to the ceiling will only be a few inches.


ONLY IF you meet the following... (which you probably don't... I have yet to see a code compliant installation of this section)

Cables with entirely nonmetallic sheaths shall be permitted to enter the top of a surface-mounted enclosure through one or more non flexible raceway not less than 18 in. or more than 10' in length provided all of the following are met:

(a) Each cable is fastened within 12" of the outer end of the raceway
(b) The raceway extends directly above the enclosure and does not penetrate a structural ceiling.
(c) A fitting is provided on each end of the raceway
(d) The raceway is plugged or sealed
(e) The cable sheath is continuous through the raceway.
(f) The raceway is fastened at its outer end
(g) you meet the allowable cable fill
 
Last edited:

Chris75

Electrician
Messages
607
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Litchfield, CT
I would use a short piece of 2" RNC. Then Chapter 9 applies, not 310-16 (300.17 FPN, 352.22). The computation is not simple, depends on the number and size of conductors and types of insulation, and does not apply anyway to "sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring from physical damage." (Note 2 to Table 1.) Every installation I've seen like this uses a couple feet or so of 2" of RNC filled until no more cables will fit. I use a "fill loosely" rule of thumb. I would also run 3 pieces from the panel up to wherever you're going (attic?) to allow for future expansion.

I'd like to hear a real Code junkie's take on this. Maybe there's some wisdom to be found in Mike Holt's forum.

Check out my post... its very hard to be able to just slap a piece of raceway up and use it for homeruns...
 

Mikey

Aspiring Old Fart, EE, computer & networking geek
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Location
Hansville, Washington
May be very hard, but very common, and have apparently passed inspection. Can you give me the chapter & verse on that citation? There must be a loophole...
 

Chris75

Electrician
Messages
607
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Litchfield, CT
May be very hard, but very common, and have apparently passed inspection. Can you give me the chapter & verse on that citation? There must be a loophole...

check out 312 .5(C) You dont need a loophole, you just need to follow the code, and its usually hard to meet the requirements
 

Mikey

Aspiring Old Fart, EE, computer & networking geek
Messages
3,024
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Location
Hansville, Washington
Thanks for the cite. I've spent some quality time on Mike Holts' forum and, as usual, find the discussions fascinating and the Code in desperate need of work beyond the normal revision cycle.

312(5)(C)(b) immediately rains out the parade by prohibiting penetration of a structural ceiling, which is the reason for using the conduit in the first place. I can't believe that any reasonable person would prefer 30-40 individual cables making their way out of the attic space into individual knockouts on the panel to running them through several large conduits. But, is a garage ceiling "structural"? At least one NEC expert says no. If there's no drywall on the ceiling and the conduits pass between the joists, are they "penetrating" the ceiling? Maybe, maybe not.

312(5)(C)(g) says to use Table 1 of Chapter 9 to determine conduit fill; Note 2 to Table 1 says Table 1 is "not intended to apply to sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring from physical damage", which seems to be the case here, since 312.5 starts out by saying "conductors... shall be protected from abrasion...".

Finally, the entire Exception under 312.5(C) applies to a "surface mounted" enclosure. If the service panel is mounted between 2 framing members, is it "surface mounted"? What if the panel is mounted on the surface of a masonry wall, on which a finish wall is later constructed so that the panel is ultimately flush with the finished surface?

Bottom line, as usual, seems to be that the Code is pretty vague and conflicting in may instances; ultimately, if your AHJ likes it, it's OK. There seem to be lots of conflicts in both directions -- one inspector mentioned on Mike's forum, for example, will not accept plastic boxes with the integral cable clamps, even though they're UL approved, Listed, and still have a few drops of holy water on them.
 
Last edited:

Chris75

Electrician
Messages
607
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Litchfield, CT
312(5)(C)(b) immediately rains out the parade by prohibiting penetration of a structural ceiling, which is the reason for using the conduit in the first place. I can't believe that any reasonable person would prefer 30-40 individual cables making their way out of the attic space into individual knockouts on the panel to running them through several large conduits.
You get used to it, its really not that hard, to me it would be harder later on to add/remove circuits that were all installed in a conduit.

But, is a garage ceiling "structural"? At least one NEC expert says no. If there's no drywall on the ceiling and the conduits pass between the joists, are they "penetrating" the ceiling? Maybe, maybe not.
Definition: The overhead surface in a room, made from any of several materials, as wood or plaster.

312(5)(C)(g) says to use Table 1 of Chapter 9 to determine conduit fill; Note 2 to Table 1 says Table 1 is "not intended to apply to sections of conduit or tubing used to protect exposed wiring from physical damage", which seems to be the case here, since 312.5 starts out by saying "conductors... shall be protected from abrasion...".
Yes. BUT, 312.5(C)(g) is telling you to use the table...



Finally, the entire Exception under 312.5(C) applies to a "surface mounted" enclosure. If the service panel is mounted between 2 framing members, is it "surface mounted"?

It means what it says, the panel MUST be surface mounted...

What if the panel is mounted on the surface of a masonry wall, on which a finish wall is later constructed so that the panel is ultimately flush with the finished surface?

I dont worry about what if's... cross that bridge when it happens...

Bottom line, as usual, seems to be that the Code is pretty vague and conflicting in may instances; ultimately, if your AHJ likes it, it's OK. There seem to be lots of conflicts in both directions -- one inspector mentioned on Mike's forum, for example, will not accept plastic boxes with the integral cable clamps, even though they're UL approved, Listed, and still have a few drops of holy water on them.

Listen, I have never met an AHJ, only inspectors, they can only inspect, not change the rules as they go, so if there is no state amendment, then they are making their own rules which is so wrong.... and its not OK if an inspector thinks its OK, its a code violation and they are not doing their job....
 
Top
Hey, wait a minute.

This is awkward, but...

It looks like you're using an ad blocker. We get it, but (1) terrylove.com can't live without ads, and (2) ad blockers can cause issues with videos and comments. If you'd like to support the site, please allow ads.

If any particular ad is your REASON for blocking ads, please let us know. We might be able to do something about it. Thanks.
I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks