Denray Posted February 21, 2015 Report Posted February 21, 2015 Is it OK for the EG feeder to be split up on the ground bar at the main panel? Click to Enlarge 42.76 KB
Jim Katen Posted February 21, 2015 Report Posted February 21, 2015 Denray said: Is it OK for the EG feeder to be split up on the ground bar at the main panel? Click to Enlarge 42.76 KB It's one of those things that's absolutely incorrect and will absolutely be fine.
Denray Posted February 21, 2015 Author Report Posted February 21, 2015 Thanks for the late Friday reply Jim!
John Kogel Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 In my area, or country if you will, there can not be branch wiring in the same conduit as the service entry conductors. I think it may be allowed for AC in the USA. ?
Jim Katen Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 John Kogel said: In my area, or country if you will, there can not be branch wiring in the same conduit as the service entry conductors. I think it may be allowed for AC in the USA. ? Looks like a feeder, not an SEC.
brric Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 The pvc terminal adapter should be installed on the electrical enclosure, not to the substrate behind it.
Jack Davenport Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Denray said: Is it OK for the EG feeder to be split up on the ground bar at the main panel? Click to Enlarge 42.76 KB Absolutely not allowed ! The reason is; that stranded conductor is rated ( and tested/approved) to carry a certain amount of amperage based on the size of all those individual strands combined into 1 stranded conductor. Now that they are split up that section of the conductor is no longer rated to that amount of amperage. Lets say there is a fault condition that puts amperage on that conductor. there is a possibility of overloading the sections at the terminal bar. Those split up sections could possibly overload to the point of melting! Rare ,but possible. IMHO - ANY inspector who does not call this out should hang it up and go work as a Wal-Mart Greeter or McDonalds !
Jim Port Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 brric said: The pvc terminal adapter should be installed on the electrical enclosure, not to the substrate behind it. Yeah, but the hole is too big. Heck, at least they used one.
Denray Posted February 23, 2015 Author Report Posted February 23, 2015 Jim, which side of the doorway do you want to work?
brric Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Personally I'd like to see a photo of the entire enclosure. If that is a service panel/disconnect the SER equipment grounding conductor should be terminated with the neutral.
Jim Katen Posted February 23, 2015 Report Posted February 23, 2015 Denray said: Jim, which side of the doorway do you want to work? Hey, I never said I wouldn't report it. With things like this, if it's the only electrical note, I advise folks to get it fixed the next time an electrician is present for other repairs. If there are other electrical repairs needed, I just lump it in with them. I generally report things when they're wrong, even if they're likely to be benign. Sorry if my answer was misleading. I didn't think you were asking for reporting advice.
SNations Posted February 24, 2015 Report Posted February 24, 2015 I understand that this isn't allowed. But I'd like to better understand why it's not allowed. The solution is to install a single terminal lug, right? So that would put all of the current at just one section of the terminal bar. So clearly the danger isn't that the terminal bar might be overloaded. Electricity flows primarily along the surface of the wire, right? So I don't see the physical problem with load carrying capacity being reduced. Maybe the problem is that splitting up the strands can cause some sort of arc among the different strands. Does that sound right? Anybody know for sure?
Marc Posted February 24, 2015 Report Posted February 24, 2015 SNations said: I understand that this isn't allowed. But I'd like to better understand why it's not allowed. The solution is to install a single terminal lug, right? So that would put all of the current at just one section of the terminal bar. So clearly the danger isn't that the terminal bar might be overloaded. Electricity flows primarily along the surface of the wire, right? So I don't see the physical problem with load carrying capacity being reduced. Maybe the problem is that splitting up the strands can cause some sort of arc among the different strands. Does that sound right? Anybody know for sure? Like Jim opined, few, if any, consequences will result. It's mostly about being consistent with what the manufacturer intended, avoiding practices that haven't been evaluated and keeping the variables to a minimum. Marc
Jim Katen Posted February 24, 2015 Report Posted February 24, 2015 SNations said: I understand that this isn't allowed. But I'd like to better understand why it's not allowed. The solution is to install a single terminal lug, right? So that would put all of the current at just one section of the terminal bar. So clearly the danger isn't that the terminal bar might be overloaded. Electricity flows primarily along the surface of the wire, right? So I don't see the physical problem with load carrying capacity being reduced. Maybe the problem is that splitting up the strands can cause some sort of arc among the different strands. Does that sound right? Anybody know for sure? Honestly, the reason its wrong is because the NEC and the testing standard say so. The reason to report it is so that you don't look like a dope when the next guy reports it. If none of the strands are omitted, and the connections are secure, the likelihood of it every causing an electrical problem is very close to zero.
Denray Posted February 24, 2015 Author Report Posted February 24, 2015 I worked 4 hours at Walmart tonight. It wasn't that bad. Somebody said I looked stupid standing in my swim fins.
SNations Posted February 24, 2015 Report Posted February 24, 2015 Jim Katen said: Honestly, the reason its wrong is because the NEC and the testing standard say so. The reason to report it is so that you don't look like a dope when the next guy reports it. If none of the strands are omitted, and the connections are secure, the likelihood of it every causing an electrical problem is very close to zero. Well I suppose that saying it isn't allowed because nobody has ever proved that it works is not completely unreasonable. Still, I have to believe that somewhere, somehow, somebody on some code-making committee has a theory as to what might go wrong.
Jim Katen Posted February 24, 2015 Report Posted February 24, 2015 SNations said: . . . Still, I have to believe that somewhere, somehow, somebody on some code-making committee has a theory as to what might go wrong. I doubt it. It's more like, "We know it works right this way. We don't know whether or not it works right that way." No one has written a standard that covers separating the strands of a wire and placing them under two lugs.
kurt Posted February 24, 2015 Report Posted February 24, 2015 Jim Katen said: The reason to report it is so that you don't look like a dope when the next guy reports it. There's a fair amount of that in this job nowadays. I see this done by Local 134 guys and no one squawks. There's no hazard other than the next guy saying it should be fixed.
Marc Posted February 24, 2015 Report Posted February 24, 2015 As I understand it , the code forming committees are not burdened with proving that a certain practice is a hazard before they can allow language to pass that effectively prohibits that practice. Marc
Jim Baird Posted February 24, 2015 Report Posted February 24, 2015 We could just fall back on the idea that a multi-strand conductor, when split so the pieces will fit smaller lugs, is simply altered equipment, and ergo not allowed.
kurt Posted February 24, 2015 Report Posted February 24, 2015 That's easiest. In my own life, I own a fair amount of equipment with picayune anomalies that I ceased caring about years ago. I'll love seeing the home inspection report when I sell my place someday.
Marc Posted February 24, 2015 Report Posted February 24, 2015 kurt said: That's easiest. In my own life, I own a fair amount of equipment with picayune anomalies that I ceased caring about years ago. I'll love seeing the home inspection report when I sell my place someday. Yeah, that report is gonna say more about the inspector than the house. The judge gets judged. Marc
Speedy Petey Posted February 28, 2015 Report Posted February 28, 2015 It's definitely not allowed, and personally I don't care why. Code is code. Thing is, that will fit in one hole! I am amazed at how many times I see this when it is completely unnecessary. That looks to me like #2SER, which makes the EGC #4. Pretty much every modern ground and neutral bar WILL accept up to #4.
Marc Posted February 28, 2015 Report Posted February 28, 2015 Speedy Petey said: It's definitely not allowed, and personally I don't care why. Code is code. Thing is, that will fit in one hole! I am amazed at how many times I see this when it is completely unnecessary. That looks to me like #2SER, which makes the EGC #4. Pretty much every modern ground and neutral bar WILL accept up to #4. #4 aluminum stranded? Marc
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now