ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#172354 - 12/18/07 10:16 AM Article 408 - Am I missing something?
sabrown Offline
Member
Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 302
Loc: Ogden, Utah, USA
I just dropped into article 408 looking for 408.34 and it is no where to be seen. Interesting, I tried to find anything like it in 100, 220, or 225, but until I get my electronic version I am giving up.

Anyone know the reasoning or where it may be?
Top
2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#172359 - 12/18/07 11:09 AM Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: sabrown]
ghost307 Offline
Member
Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 899
Loc: Chicago Illinois USA
408.34 and 408.35 have both been deleted in the 2008 NEC.

The original reason that the 42 circuit maximum was written back in the 1930's was to prevent the rubber insulated conductors from being damaged by overcrowding and/or overheating. This is no longer an issue, so the 42 circuit limit is now history.
_________________________
Ghost307
Top
#172405 - 12/18/07 08:02 PM Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: ghost307]
leland Offline
Member
Registered: 08/20/07
Posts: 853
Loc: Lowell area, Ma. USA
YIPEEE!!
Top
#172430 - 12/19/07 07:01 AM Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: leland]
sabrown Offline
Member
Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 302
Loc: Ogden, Utah, USA
I was looking for it for the lighting and appliance branch circuit panelboard for the tie in to 408.36 which has been totally rewritten also.

The number of disconnects on my main feeder to a building will total 4 one of which is a 15 amp, 240 VAC dosing station. The main feeder is protected remotely by a single breaker properly sized and even though the job is in California, it's a Federal project that will be built under the 2008. It was OK before, with some exceptions (like a feeder protected higher than the rating of the panel), but I wanted to be sure under the new. See 225.33 and NEC 2005 408.36(A) ex 1 versus 2008 408.36 (exception not required).
Top
#172432 - 12/19/07 07:32 AM Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: sabrown]
Alan Nadon Offline
Member
Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 399
Loc: Elkhart, IN. USA
Please remember that just because the 42 circuit restriction has been removed it does not allow you to fill a panel with tandem breakers.
Only if the panel is listed for tandem breakers can you use them.
_________________________
Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.
Top
#172453 - 12/19/07 02:59 PM Re: Article 408 - Am I missing something? [Re: Alan Nadon]
sabrown Offline
Member
Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 302
Loc: Ogden, Utah, USA
I agree. In this case here a 42 circuit panel would serve the building, but trying to be considerate to the electrician in getting runs through the stud walls, I am calling out 2 subpanels. It also helps to minimize penetrations through a firewall.
Top

Member Spotlight
Member Since: 12/24/00
Posts: 4259
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box


Who's Online
2 registered (gfretwell, sparkyinak), 53 Guests and 10 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
 
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
 
Top Posters (30 Days)
Admin 49
HotLine1 43
gfretwell 18
Ruben Rocha 12
Trumpy 9
 
Newest Members
Freecrowder, clee512, Jdscott2005, FAIZAN, Regitest2

ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals