Double tapped main

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob


No one ever marks them. ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif)

Jeff

IMHO I believe that the code wanted a main disconnect to the building. This could be six disconnects.

Again IMHO the first panel is feeding the second panel.

If this does not work---Bob--- is the breaker a approved splice?

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Okay, so here’s another, though not exactly the same (but kinda close.


400 ampere service to home. Single set of cables from meter pan. Enters home. Gets split in a openable distribution trough. Now, feeds go to separate service panels. Each panel rated for 200 amperes. Each panel wired as a prime. Each panel with a main disconnect. To boot, each panel mounted upside down. Each panel with AJH "approved" inspection sticker.

I may not like it, but I doubt that the configuration needs to be changed, in a real sense. Even the panels being upside down id a no no, but there it was, approved by the electrical inspector...

The feeds were split in the trough.


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



So engrossed with my own smartness I forgot to look at the second panel.


What about the paralleled conductors? The grounded conductor and the equipment ground are bonded at the second panel. Why did he use a 4 wire to the second panel?

EDIT They may not be bonded. I can not tell if the panel is grounded.


Mike P.


Originally Posted By: Mike Parks
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Joe


There must be a disconnect outside or inside before the trough.

Mike P.


Originally Posted By: jfarsetta
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Nope… no disco present.


Also, if a disconnect was present, then the panels in question would be wired as subs, with floating neutrals. They were wired as typical main service entry panels.

Again, approved by the AHJ, and in existence since 1984.

So, although this may be poor practice, the question is whether it is permitted. I believe it is.


--
Joe Farsetta

Illigitimi Non Carborundum
"Dont let the bastards grind you down..."

Originally Posted By: Dave Nix
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Hi MIke,


I'm not so sure there would need to be a disco before the trough. I think if the install were set up like "jfarsetta" has described, you would be OK (providing the splices were made properly).

The main problem I see with the install in the photo is the "double tap" on the line side of the main breaker because it is made in an unapproved connection (multiple conductors under one screw). That said, there is most likely a problem with the grounded conductor and the grounding electrode conductor and the main bonding jumper in the secound panel.


--
Dave Nix
Electrical Matters

Originally Posted By: tallen
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob,Mike


Is there not a tap rule ? So many feet(18’) maybe without having separate disconnect means as long as the total amperage does not exceed the main disconnect; of course in this case they tapped the main so it does not matter, unless as you stated before it is spliced with split bolt and rubber taped and then double taped at a wrap and a half.What the he** am I talking about icon_wink.gif



I have put the past behind me,


where , however, it now sits, making rude remarks.


www.whiteglovehomeinspections.net

30 Oct 2003-- 29 Nov2005

Originally Posted By: Dave Nix
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Here is a composite shot for continuity.




Generally speaking, the "tap rules" apply when smaller sized conductors are tapped from larger conductors and the concern is over current protection.


--
Dave Nix
Electrical Matters

Originally Posted By: tallen
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I did not know the NEC had a generally it either is or it is not. It either meets min code requirements or it does not.A tap is a tap. I guess I will give to the fact that it is a double tapped feeder and is in need of assistance.



I have put the past behind me,


where , however, it now sits, making rude remarks.


www.whiteglovehomeinspections.net

30 Oct 2003-- 29 Nov2005

Originally Posted By: Dave Nix
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Todd,


I was trying not to be too technical.... OK?

Quote:
230.46 Spliced Conductors.
Service-entrance conductors shall be permitted to be spliced or tapped in accordance with 110.14, 300.5(E), 300.13, and 300.15.


As you can see, service entrance conductors have different tap rules than branch or feeder conductors.


--
Dave Nix
Electrical Matters

Originally Posted By: tallen
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Yes ,I know that but they still have to deal with the tap rule and, they cannot be double lugged.OK, I don’t want to fight icon_lol.gif but, sometimes these visual Inspections that we do get way out of hand on this board and it turns into a code thing.



I have put the past behind me,


where , however, it now sits, making rude remarks.


www.whiteglovehomeinspections.net

30 Oct 2003-- 29 Nov2005

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jpope wrote:
There is no overcurrent protection provided for those wires traveling to the sub panel.

Actually it looks like a main breaker in the secondary service panel, which would provide load side overcurrent protection if sized correctly.

Just no supply side short circuit protection like any other SE cable, other than any on the utility side. Same case if the secondary service panel feeders were spliced/tapped off the incoming SE cable as Bob noted. But my gut reaction is that should be in a wiring trough ahead of the service panels.

Bob Badger wrote:
What we have here (it seems) is 200 amp service conductors feeding a 200 and a 100 amp breaker, strictly speaking you do have the ability to overload the service conductors by 100 amps, but none the less it is allowed if the calculated load in this case was less than 200 amps.

Agreed ... although a pretty easy calc, it's beyond a home inspection. So that may require evaluation by a licensed professional if the panels were packed.

BTW, not to pick on anyone, but I think "Main Panel" is a poor term to use. Doesn't tell you if it's a "Service Panel" with the main disconnect (i.e. service equipment) where there should be a neutral-ground bond, or if it's only a "Distribution Panel" downstream of a separate main disconnect where the neutral would float. ... ![icon_idea.gif](upload://6VKizmOm2U7YYmfXNtFW4XTwFVy.gif)

Just my 2-nickles


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



roconnor wrote:
Bob Badger wrote:
What we have here (it seems) is 200 amp service conductors feeding a 200 and a 100 amp breaker, strictly speaking you do have the ability to overload the service conductors by 100 amps, but none the less it is allowed if the calculated load in this case was less than 200 amps.



Agreed ... although a pretty easy calc, it's beyond a home inspection. So that may require evaluation by a licensed professional if the panels were packed.



The fact is I do not think anyone does this calculation, this code article really surprises me. ![icon_eek.gif](upload://yuxgmvDDEGIQPAyP9sRnK0D0CCY.gif)

Bob


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Mike Parks wrote:
Jeff

Use this post. And state that you are differing this to a local pro because there is not a consensus.

Mike P.


Great advice. ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif) probably the best post in this thread.


Mike Parks wrote:
Joe

There must be a disconnect outside or inside before the trough.


Why, or what article would require it?

Bob


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: Bob Badger
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



jfarsetta wrote:
400 ampere service to home. Single set of cables from meter pan. Enters home. Gets split in a openable distribution trough. Now, feeds go to separate service panels. Each panel rated for 200 amperes. Each panel wired as a prime. Each panel with a main disconnect. To boot, each panel mounted upside down.


This is a very common installation in small commercial spaces and is allowed for dwelling units as well.

The upside down panels, that is kinda hack, and the inspector might have failed it for 110.3(B) (use as directed ![icon_wink.gif](upload://ssT9V5t45yjlgXqiFRXL04eXtqw.gif) )

Bob

By the way, nice photo work Dave.


--
Bob (AKA iwire)
ECN Discussion Forums
Mike Holt Code Forum

Originally Posted By: Dave Nix
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Thanks Bob!


Todd,

I agree with
Quote:
they still have to deal with the tap rule and, they cannot be double lugged
because when HI's see them they should be noted for further inspection by an electrician.
Also,
Quote:
visual Inspections that we do get way out of hand
To the extent when we want to argue about code or not code issues. If we all stick to whether it is safe or should be noted as questionable and further investigation is warrented, I agree.

Everyone here is invited to sign-up at Electrical Matters and ask as many code questions as you like. This site is not limited to electricians only like the others and all are welcome!


--
Dave Nix
Electrical Matters

Originally Posted By: roconnor
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Bob Badger wrote:
... strictly speaking you do have the ability to overload the service conductors by 100 amps, but none the less it is allowed if the calculated load in this case was less than 200 amps.

Bob Badger wrote:
... this code article really surprises me. ![icon_eek.gif](upload://yuxgmvDDEGIQPAyP9sRnK0D0CCY.gif)

Same gut reaction that I had, but I think it makes sense. Only the SE cable would be "protected" on the utility side. I understand that the utility drop/lateral should fry before the SE cable ... so I guess thats the protection ...

roconnor wrote:
Just no supply side short circuit protection like any other SE cable, other than any on the utility side ... But my gut reaction is that should be in a wiring trough ahead of the service panels.

I think my gut reaction doesn't agree with the model code provisions ... but that still rubs me the wrong way. ... ![icon_eek.gif](upload://yuxgmvDDEGIQPAyP9sRnK0D0CCY.gif)

I expected to see a requirement for the service conductors and taps to be in a trough ahead of the service panels ... similar to the rules in 240.21 (doesn't apply to service conductors). I didn't find any such requirement, so I guess that is just how I am used to seeing the wiring for twin service panels ...


--
Robert O'Connor, PE
Eagle Engineering ?
Eagle Eye Inspections ?
NACHI Education Committee

I am absolutely amazed sometimes by how much thought goes into doing things wrong

Originally Posted By: kdrauer
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



I was just reading through some old posts (obvoiusly) regarding 200 amp panels and 100 amp panels-


our house that we are renting has an old section that was on a 100 amp panel and a new section including a woodshop 500 feet from the house, on a 200 amp panel. I believe that the 100 is now connected to the 200? The house is wired from the energy co for 200 amps going in. Without seeing pictures, or me knowing anything about electricity, does this sound right? How would I know if the 100 is overloaded? Im pretty sure that the washer, dryer, oven, stove, dishwasher and refrigerator are all on the 100 since they are in the old part of the house.


We have a problem with the lights dimming when we turn on anything, i.e vacuum cleaner, oven and stove together etc.... any info would be helpful seeing as we are trying to get an electrician over but the landlord is arguing that everything is up to code.... Thanks ! And Happy Holidays to all of you! ![icon_cool.gif](upload://oPnLkqdJc33Dyf2uA3TQwRkfhwd.gif)


Originally Posted By: bking
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Since this is a rental situation I would inform the landlord via certified mail that you are going to hire an electrician to check it out. State that by not responding in writing within 5 days will mean that his prior statement is to be his position on the matter and that if any problems are found you will expect full reimbursement and for him to pay for any repairs/changes needed.


The only time it might be normal for lights to dim momentarily would be this: A house with a long distance from the transformer and only when a heat pump or cental air unit first turns on.

Any other time is definitely a problem and especially when the lights dim due to small loads like a vaccum cleaner. If they stay dim rather than just momentarily dim then you have a real immediate concern.


Originally Posted By: kdrauer
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.



Thanks Bruce,


We do live far from the transformer, about 18 miles up the mountain from Boulder, but I dont think we have a heat pump, we have radiant floor heat in the new section and some lovely electric baseboard heat in the old. We had it inspected by a NACHI HI, and of course he recommended an electrician, we are just trying to get all the evidence we can to make it valid to have an electrician come out. Thanks again!