# 2 section or sub panel



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

In resi we would have 200 amp panels that fed to 2nd floor sub panels. In commercial we have 400 amp panels that are in sections , sometimes 3 . Sub panels have ocp , yet section panels dont , only feed through lugs. How are they actually different in application. I think I ve seen in a house , a 200 amp panel with feed through lugs going to a panel up stairs no ocp at either end other than the main.


Sent from my SPH-D710BST using electriciantalk.com mobile app


----------



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

This would be a 3 section panel

Sent from my SPH-D710BST using electriciantalk.com mobile app


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

The fed thru lugs are connected thru the bus bar so they are protected by the 200 amp main breaker. If the breaker is 200 amps then the wires to the other panel must be sized accordingly unless they meet the tap rules. They won't comply without a main breaker in the sub panels.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

Dennis Alwon said:


> ... They won't comply without a main breaker in the sub panels.


 code section ?


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

wildleg said:


> code section ?


art. 240 section II for feeder taps. I believe they all must end in an OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICE that protects the reduced tap


----------



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

I had thought the house that I saw that the feed through lugs used was not code compliant. The tap rule was used I believe because of the feeders to the section panel upstairs. But there was no ocp other than the main in the main panel, which to me seems like someone could overload the panel upstairs and there would be the problem.

Sent from my SPH-D710BST using electriciantalk.com mobile app


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

408.36 Ex 2 & Ex 3 would also apply ...._(let's see if i can post it w/o screwing up)_

*408.36 Overcurrent Protection.* In addition to the re-
quirement of 408.30, a panelboard shall be protected by an 
overcurrent protective device having a rating not greater 
than that of the panelboard. This overcurrent protective de-
vice shall be located within or at any point on the supply 
side of the panelboard. 

*Exception No.1:* Individual protection shall not be re-
quired for a panelboard used as service equipment with 
mu ltiple disconnecting means in accordance with 230.71. 
In panelboards protected by three or more main circuit 
breakers or sets (~{ fuses, the circuit breakers or sets q{ 
filses shall not supply a second bus structure within the 
same panelboald assembly. 

*Exception No.2:* Individual protection shall not be re-
quired for a panelboard protected on its supply side by two 
Inain circuit breakers or two sets q{filses having a com-
bined rating not greater than that of the panelboard. A 
pane/board constructed or wired under this exception shall 
not contain more than 42 overcurrent devices. For the pur-
poses (~{ determining the maximum q{ 42 overcurrent de-
vices, a 2-pole or a 3-pole circuit breaker shall be consid-
ered as two or three over Current devices .. respectively. 



*Exception No.3:* For existing panelboards, individual 
protection shall not be required for a panelboard used as 
service equipment for an individual residential occupancy. 

~CS~


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I see it done all the time, but i have more reason not to , than to do it ~CS~


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> art. 240 section II for feeder taps. I believe they all must end in an OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE DEVICE that protects the reduced tap


If the conductors are protected at or below their ampacity they are not taps.
As long as the conductors and the second panel have an ampacity equal to or greater than the the main panel OCPD, there is no need for a main in the second panel assuming that the second panel is in the same building.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

All codes met, we could do away with a main on the 2ndary side of the serving xformer as well, , but it's just not my style....~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> If the conductors are protected at or below their ampacity they are not taps.
> As long as the conductors and the second panel have an ampacity equal to or greater than the the main panel OCPD, there is no need for a main in the second panel assuming that the second panel is in the same building.


I know that Don. I said UNLESS the wire from the feed thru is sized accordingly then the tap rule falls into play


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Cat fight


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

We really should be debating the pros/cons of this install

myself, i'm mainly cons, no isolation for one. 



~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

ponyboy said:


> Cat fight


Not at all. I went back and read my post and it was terribly written


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Meow


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

ponyboy said:


> Cat fight


Maybe, but he is Simba/Lion King. 
Show some respect for the "Electrical Pro of the Month"!:jester:


----------



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

So my next question would be if a panel in location a feeds another panel with feed through lugs at location b ( attic) would it be fed 4 wire and neutral and ground still bonded.? 

Sent from my SPH-D710BST using electriciantalk.com mobile app


----------



## A Little Short (Nov 11, 2010)

zen said:


> So my next question would be if a panel in location a feeds another panel with feed through lugs at location b ( attic) would it be fed 4 wire and neutral and ground still bonded.?
> 
> Sent from my SPH-D710BST using electriciantalk.com mobile app


4 wire yes, bonded, no

If it would be bonded at the next panel, there would be no need in running 4 wires. But any panel beyond the 1st means of disconnect with OCP is to be treated as a subpanel, ground & neutral separated.


----------



## zen (Jun 15, 2009)

My question is if the second panel is feed with the feed through lugs of the first panel and the second panel is a mlo. So is it still considered the main panel

Sent from my SPH-D710BST using electriciantalk.com mobile app


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I know that Don. I said UNLESS the wire from the feed thru is sized accordingly then the tap rule falls into play


I now see that you said that in post 3, but did not see that when I quoted post 5.


----------

