|
0 registered members (),
15
guests, and 14
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
 Article 200.4
#206680
07/31/12 11:49 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 830
OP
Member
|
I don't have my code book handy but am reading from a print out of major changes in the 2011 code. It says, "Will not allow a neutral conductor to be used for more than one branch circuit or feeder". Does this mean no more shared neutrals on 14/3 or 12/3 ? thanks..
|
|
|
|
Re: Article 200.4
[Re: sparkync]
#206681
07/31/12 01:11 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,218
Member
|
sparkync:
The rest of that sentence answers your question....
Neutral conductors shall not be used for more than one branch circuit, for more than one multiwire branch circuit, or for more than one set of ungrounded feeder conductors unless specifically permitted elseware within this Code.
from the '11 NEC Handbook; NOT commentary, Code text.
John
|
|
|
|
Re: Article 200.4
[Re: HotLine1]
#206682
07/31/12 03:58 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 830
OP
Member
|
Guess I just need to go and get my code book and read  Thanks a lot, Steve...
|
|
|
|
Re: Article 200.4
[Re: sparkync]
#206686
07/31/12 04:15 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,542
Member
|
The short answer is a multiwire circuit is ONE circuit. That can be 2 ungrounded conductors in 120/240 or 3 ungrounded conductors in 208 wye.
There are requirements about how and where these conductors have to be grouped and how overcurrent devices are coordinated (getting tougher each cycle it seems) but it is still one circuit.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Re: Article 200.4
[Re: sparkync]
#206712
08/02/12 03:58 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 830
OP
Member
|
Greg, that being said, when did the code every allow a neutral to serve more than one branch circuit except with a feeder that is feeding another panel?
Last edited by sparkync; 08/02/12 03:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
Re: Article 200.4
[Re: sparkync]
#206716
08/02/12 05:02 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,542
Member
|
I believe the only way a neutral can feed more than one circuit is if it is in a feeder. The code has been that way as long as I can remember.
Greg Fretwell
|
|
|
|
Re: Article 200.4
[Re: sparkync]
#206718
08/02/12 06:34 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,218
Member
|
I have to agree with Greg. Strolling down memory lane, nothing jumps out at me. Time permitting, I may crack open the oldest NEC in my collection.
John
|
|
|
|
Re: Article 200.4
[Re: sparkync]
#206727
08/03/12 11:27 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,316
Cat Servant Member
|
This discussion reminds me of one of my 'creative' moments. I was under the impression that the new code language made my otherwise legal solution forbidden.
It was a small house, a complete rewire. Construction was solid masonry. Fortunately, there was an attic.
Even so, the large EMT (not sure of the size)I ran out the side of the outside panel, up the wall, and into the attic was pretty tight. So, to reduce my wire fill, I placed a can in the attic and mounted some terminal strips. I landed my grounds on one strip, and my neutrals on another. I did run a #10 ground wire (redundant to the conduit) and, I believe, a #6 neutral (the largest circuit was 20-amp, and circuits were split between legs) from the can to the panel. Thus, that pipe had many 'hot' wires, but only one ground and one neutral.
It was an exceptional situation, and I have not used this method again. Under the current code, I am clearly not allowed to do this.
|
|
|
|
|
