InterNACHI


Go Back   InterNACHI Inspection Forum > Specific Inspection Topics > Electrical Inspections

Notices

Electrical Inspections Contains discussions about electrical systems. This includes receptacles, panels, wiring, etc.

 
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 8/25/07, 4:07 PM
Greg Fretwell Greg Fretwell is offline
Active Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Estero Florida
Posts: 1,798
Please Note: Greg Fretwell is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

This is a retrofit and the U/L listed terminal strip is extending the short neutrals. It is better than 12 wirenuts IMHO but it is a labelling violation since SqD does not say this is OK in their panel. The real question is if absence of a mention on the label is really prohibition.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 8/25/07, 4:19 PM
Speedy Petey Speedy Petey is offline
Unmoderated Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,297
Please Note: Speedy Petey is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Well look at that. I don't know what to think.
I am not even sure if it is a violation. I would think it is only a violation if it says you cannot install such a device. Somthing like "Use only listed Square D parts in this panel".

Good picture, post and question Greg.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 8/25/07, 4:35 PM
Richard L. Bennett Richard L. Bennett is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Frostproof, Fl
Posts: 2,304
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

It is wrong

The current rating of the strip is the question. -- This strip has no rating - if the person cleaning up this panel had used a strip from his local electrical supplier or even home depot I would have been happier



Me thinks I have seen this strip at Radio Shack

rlb
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 8/25/07, 4:48 PM
Speedy Petey Speedy Petey is offline
Unmoderated Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,297
Please Note: Speedy Petey is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbennett
It is wrong

The current rating of the strip is the question. -- This strip has no rating
You know this for certain???

I have seen these strips very often in control panels and boards. The MUST have a certain rating.
Hell, they are the exact same strips, only smaller, that hot tubs and spas use for thier line-in terminations. These are typically 60A circuits and 48A loads.
What say you about that?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 8/25/07, 4:58 PM
Speedy Petey Speedy Petey is offline
Unmoderated Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,297
Please Note: Speedy Petey is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Google and 30 seconds = http://www.ebyelectro.com/europa_blocks/toc_eu.asp
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 8/25/07, 5:20 PM
David P. Valley's Avatar
David P. Valley David P. Valley is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: METHUEN, MA
Posts: 8,681
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

The installer spent more time on the terminal strip than it would have taken to twist on several caps onto these short neutrals.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 8/25/07, 8:13 PM
Greg Fretwell Greg Fretwell is offline
Active Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Estero Florida
Posts: 1,798
Please Note: Greg Fretwell is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Actually this was probably as fast as doing the wirenuts and it is a lot cleaner install to sort out later.

The only real trick is to find the right screwdriver for those strips. I ended up grinding my own so that it was a good fit.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 8/25/07, 8:13 PM
Marc D. Shunk's Avatar
Marc D. Shunk Marc D. Shunk is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,980
Please Note: Marc D. Shunk is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Cutler Hammer makes a panel that purposely has a splicing bar like that at the top.

I don't seen any issues with that install. That bar very likely has a UR (rated component) listing, and Square D does not prohibit this install. Heck, it's very normal and expected to have similar power distribution blocks in larger junction boxes and gutters in modern installs. I think it's a neat job.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 8/25/07, 8:17 PM
Greg Fretwell Greg Fretwell is offline
Active Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Estero Florida
Posts: 1,798
Please Note: Greg Fretwell is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Good eye Petey, these are series 1000 40a strips.

BTW the guys over at IAEI and ECN said this was legal too.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 8/25/07, 9:38 PM
Richard L. Bennett Richard L. Bennett is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Frostproof, Fl
Posts: 2,304
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Ok all you sparkies I have learned something today

I am not a code expert and gut feeling was wrong

I do have a question though -- Does the below apply??

NEC 110.14 or 300.15 "Splices shall be made with an approved splice cap or "wire Nut""

This says to me that a "bar" would have to be used because it would not be a splice

I know that my notes are not up to date and that I was wrong on the current rating thing but are my notes wrong on the NEC or am I reading it wrong

Glad that I don't have to be a code person

Help

rlb
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 8/25/07, 9:44 PM
Marc D. Shunk's Avatar
Marc D. Shunk Marc D. Shunk is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,980
Please Note: Marc D. Shunk is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbennett
NEC 110.14 or 300.15 "Splices shall be made with an approved splice cap or "wire Nut"
Your notes, while certainly well intentioned and probably helpful to you, don't really accurately reflect the actual code text. The barrier strip pictured would be permissible by both sections.

110.14 Electrical Connections. Because of different characteristics
of dissimilar metals, devices such as pressure
terminal or pressure splicing connectors and soldering lugs
shall be identified for the material of the conductor and
shall be properly installed and used. Conductors of dissimilar
metals shall not be intermixed in a terminal or splicing
connector where physical contact occurs between dissimilar
conductors (such as copper and aluminum, copper and
copper-clad aluminum, or aluminum and copper-clad aluminum),
unless the device is identified for the purpose and
conditions of use. Materials such as solder, fluxes, inhibitors,
and compounds, where employed, shall be suitable for
the use and shall be of a type that will not adversely affect
the conductors, installation, or equipment.

FPN: Many terminations and equipment are marked with a
tightening torque.



300.15 is more about the requirement for a box and similar associated fittings.

If I saw an installation like this one, my only concern would be that the strip was rated for both the voltage of the conductors and the amperage that will be flowing through them. I am famalier with this particular barrier strip, and can say it's a sweet install. I may actually start doing this myself now.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 8/25/07, 9:48 PM
Marc D. Shunk's Avatar
Marc D. Shunk Marc D. Shunk is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,980
Please Note: Marc D. Shunk is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Just noticed that there appears to be circuit conductors exiting the top of the enclosure in ENT that don't appear to have a grounding conductor associated with them.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 8/25/07, 10:04 PM
Richard L. Bennett Richard L. Bennett is offline
InterNACHI Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Frostproof, Fl
Posts: 2,304
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Marc

I do not have a copy of 110.14 but a google search has the exact quote that I have in my notes that I took at a telecom training seminar for Quest Communications about 6 years ago

Looks like I should get a real NEC book if I am going to get into things like this

Or better yet use the NACH BB -- better than any code book any day because it covers all trades

Am I still wrong??

rlb
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 8/25/07, 10:09 PM
Marc D. Shunk's Avatar
Marc D. Shunk Marc D. Shunk is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central PA
Posts: 1,980
Please Note: Marc D. Shunk is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbennett
Am I still wrong??
Wrong about what? I did copy and paste the actual text of 110.14 above for your convenience if it's interesting to you. It's more aimed toward copper to aluminium connections. There are a variety of approved methods to connect copper to copper, and many of them are not wire nuts, per se.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 8/25/07, 10:34 PM
Greg Fretwell Greg Fretwell is offline
Active Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Estero Florida
Posts: 1,798
Please Note: Greg Fretwell is a non-member guest and is in no way affiliated with InterNACHI or its members.
Default Re: clearly a 110.3 violation but is it a good idea?

Marc The ENT terminated in a plastic box that totally enclosed the device. There was nothing to bond.

Richard, this is what you are talking about
110.14(B) Splices. Conductors shall be spliced or joined with splicing devices identified for the use or by brazing, welding, or soldering with a fusible metal or alloy. Soldered splices shall first be spliced or joined so as to be mechanically and electrically secure without solder and then be soldered. All splices and joints and the free ends of conductors shall be covered with an insulation equivalent to that of the conductors or with an insulating device identified for the purpose.

This strip is an insulating device identified for the purpose.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Reference for Wood Shake Roof krichardson Exterior Inspections 5 1/17/06 6:59 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 2:22 AM.


Popular Sections

:

All Sections

Inspection News

InterNACHI Membership

Inspection Standards

Inspection Education

InterNACHI Inspectors

Inspection Links

 

 

 

NACHI.ORG Statistics

 

 

no new posts