# does this grounding conductor termination meet code?



## mikewillnot (Apr 2, 2013)

(For some reason the software wants top turn the pic sideways. )


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

2 problems. The neutrals must terminate under their own screw (408.41) and the split equipment grounding conductor must terminate in an approved fashion. They make lugs for the ground bar that will accept the larger conductors.


----------



## mikewillnot (Apr 2, 2013)

It was the second thing I was wondering about


----------



## daveEM (Nov 18, 2012)

Hold your phone like a camera, not up and down. Pics will then be fine. 

Ah, when talking on the phone hold the phone like a phone.


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

That is either a very very dark color of green that doesn't translate to my monitor well, or we have problem #3 going on there as well...........

Solid, standed ,* GREEN* or bare copper.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

macmikeman said:


> That is either a very very dark color of green that doesn't translate to my monitor well, or we have problem #3 going on there as well...........
> 
> Solid, standed ,* GREEN* or bare copper.


I think they never taped the conductors green.


----------



## dronai (Apr 11, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> They make lugs for the ground bar that will accept the larger conductors.


I usually just attach a lug to the back of the panel. I have to look into what you are talking about.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

dronai said:


> I usually just attach a lug to the back of the panel. I have to look into what you are talking about.


Something like this


----------



## mikewillnot (Apr 2, 2013)

I know they make the lugs. 
I was wondering if splitting the conductor and putting it under two stock screws is a violation. 
And good point about the green. 
I confess to overlooking the green tape thing on occasion myself.


----------



## minichopper6hp (Apr 19, 2014)

mikewillnot said:


> I know they make the lugs.
> I was wondering if splitting the conductor and putting it under two stock screws is a violation.
> And good point about the green.
> I confess to overlooking the green tape thing on occasion myself.


Yea about that....


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (May 31, 2013)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Something like this


I think that splitting the strands on the conductor makes a better connection.


----------



## Meadow (Jan 14, 2011)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> I think that splitting the strands on the conductor makes a better connection.


You might actually be right


----------



## mikewillnot (Apr 2, 2013)

It's hard to see what's wrong with it if there's enough terminals available


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

mikewillnot said:


> It's hard to see what's wrong with it if there's enough terminals available


It's grade A busch league hack and it sickens me


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (May 31, 2013)

ponyboy said:


> It's grade A busch league hack and it sickens me


I hate those lugs with a passion. I'll continue doing what I feel is the safest job. You can continue feeding subpanels with a ****ty neutral connection.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> I hate those lugs with a passion. I'll continue doing what I feel is the safest job. You can continue feeding subpanels with a ****ty neutral connection.


Lol. Have fun with your cute 100 amp sub panels. That is as hack as it gets but I'm guessing it's the norm in your area of work. 

Even IF I had to run a small neutral from a loadcenter I'd use a saddle lug, not the tab style.


----------



## manchestersparky (Mar 25, 2007)

I see this all the time and it gets a red tag every time.

The problem with splitting the conductor is you alter the ampere rating of the conductor at the split.

A conductor is rated for amperes based on the circular mill of the conductor. Now split that conductor and what is the ampere rating of the short section that has been split? If there was a fault condition would that short section be able to carry the load? How many amperes will flow on each "leg" of that short section?


----------



## T&K (Jun 18, 2012)

manchestersparky said:


> I see this all the time and it gets a red tag every time. The problem with splitting the conductor is you alter the ampere rating of the conductor at the split. A conductor is rated for amperes based on the circular mill of the conductor. Now split that conductor and what is the ampere rating of the short section that has been split? If there was a fault condition would that short section be able to carry the load? How many amperes will flow on each "leg" of that short section?


i can't agree here. If that was the case, then parallel conductors wouldn't be allowed. Do you tag these installations because of your opinion on the installation, or do you cite a code violation? Just wondering, as this passes inspections in this area all the time. Would you fail an installation where the electrician ran a 6awg conductor for some parking lot lights (allowing for voltage drop), and terminated it under a square d breaker, with the conductor separated around the terminal screw?


----------



## mikewillnot (Apr 2, 2013)

ponyboy said:


> It's grade A busch league hack and it sickens me


I assume you mean "bush."
Busch league would imply something different. 
Either way, that's a fairly harsh opinion...but maybe you sicken easily. 

Much of my work is in low income rental property (where i took this pic) and in that environment the split GEC termination doesn't begin to move the needle on bush-league hacks that I find. Seriously. 

Anyway I'd be more interested in a code citation than a rant. I can't find anything.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

mikewillnot said:


> I assume you mean "bush." Busch league would imply something different. Either way, that's a fairly harsh opinion...but maybe you sicken easily. Much of my work is in low income rental property (where i took this pic) and in that environment the split GEC termination doesn't begin to move the needle on bush-league hacks that I find. Seriously. Anyway I'd be more interested in a code citation than a rant. I can't find anything.


 No, it's Busch. Trust me. If it's a GEC or EGC I don't really care. I was discussing neutral connections with what's his name before. Honestly I don't care, it's totally fine. I'm just a touch dramatic. Friends again?

As far as code citations, Manchester pretty much nailed it with ampacity issues regarding the grounded conductor.


----------



## Next72969 (Dec 9, 2012)

Mmmmmmmmmm butcherrrrr


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (May 31, 2013)

ponyboy said:


> No, it's Busch. Trust me. If it's a GEC or EGC I don't really care. I was discussing neutral connections with what's his name before. Honestly I don't care, it's totally fine. I'm just a touch dramatic. Friends again?
> 
> As far as code citations, Manchester pretty much nailed it with ampacity issues regarding the grounded conductor.


Sounds like you're grasping at straws to me. I'll get an answer from the state inspector. His feelings are more relevant to me.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Sounds like you're grasping at straws to me. I'll get an answer from the state inspector. His feelings are more relevant to me...


 Is it really necessary for someone to prove it's unacceptable to split conductors in order to force them into terminations not designed to accept them?









So I can use this to terminate a piece of 500MCM as long as I only put a couple strands under each screw? C'mon.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> Sounds like you're grasping at straws to me. I'll get an answer from the state inspector. His feelings are more relevant to me. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


Let us know how that turns out


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Big John said:


> Is it really necessary for someone to prove it's unacceptable to split conductors in order to force them into terminations not designed to accept them? So I can use this to terminate a piece of 500MCM as long as I only put a couple strands under each screw? C'mon.


Whoa whoa whoa. Too much logic. System overload, internet down


----------



## T&K (Jun 18, 2012)

When you parallel conductors it's the exact same thing.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

ponyboy said:


> It's grade A busch league hack and it sickens me


The well guys hack chit in like that here.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

T&K said:


> When you parallel conductors it's the exact same thing.


Maybe not exactly


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

ponyboy said:


> Maybe not exactly


Well it really is however code is what we are looking at here. Yes we all probably have done this- I have- and it would most likely never be an issue however if you are looking at something that will be failed then this would be as you cannot parallel wires smaller than 1/0 so there are two violations there.

The lug I pictured is code compliant and I am not going to argue which is a better connection. If it got listed it should do the job.


----------



## T&K (Jun 18, 2012)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Well it really is however code is what we are looking at here. Yes we all probably have done this- I have- and it would most likely never be an issue however if you are looking at something that will be failed then this would be as you cannot parallel wires smaller than 1/0 so there are two violations there.
> 
> The lug I pictured is code compliant and I am not going to argue which is a better connection. If it got listed it should do the job.


There is no doubt the lug you pictured is code compliant, and UL listed for the purpose. While I compare it to paralleling conductors for the purpose of the ampacity argument, it is for a reference only. There still is no code violation on separating the conductor into 2 slots on the neutral buss. And I'm feel confident that you can't find anything in the UL white book concerning this. I say this because this very install will pass the most picky of city inspectors that make code compliance tougher than many large metro areas. I will, however, gladly eat my words with a quote directly from a code book that specifically states this scenario. While I agree it may be a little hackish, so is backstabbing receptacles, but it's still allowed.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

T&K said:


> There is no doubt the lug you pictured is code compliant, and UL listed for the purpose. While I compare it to paralleling conductors for the purpose of the ampacity argument, it is for a reference only. There still is no code violation on separating the conductor into 2 slots on the neutral buss. And I'm feel confident that you can't find anything in the UL white book concerning this. I say this because this very install will pass the most picky of city inspectors that make code compliance tougher than many large metro areas. I will, however, gladly eat my words with a quote directly from a code book that specifically states this scenario. While I agree it may be a little hackish, so is backstabbing receptacles, but it's still allowed.


There should be something in the panelboard describing the size, type and amount of conductor(s) permitted to be terminated to that bar.

I would be suprised if UL or any other NRTL has ever evaluated the terminal bar for the use you show and are trying to defend.

That being said, I would say you have a clear violation of 110.3(B). 

Pete


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

Pete m. said:


> There should be something in the panelboard describing the size, type and amount of conductor(s) permitted to be terminated to that bar. I would be suprised if UL or any other NRTL has ever evaluated the terminal bar for the use you show and are trying to defend. That being said, I would say you have a clear violation of 110.3(B). Pete


No kidding Pete thanks. It says right on the ground bar 4-14 awg. I don't even see how there's an argument. I agree that it's probably a non issue but it would not fly here at all, and our inspectors aren't all that sharp. It seems to me that certain demographics have different ideas of what's hack and what's not, who would've thought


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (May 31, 2013)

I'm sure that you're right. I would still rather split up a #2 than use one of those ****ty ge lugs that requires you to bend the wire to tightly and twists when tightening the lug.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

BababooeyHTJ said:


> I'm sure that you're right. I would still rather split up a #2 than use one of those ****ty ge lugs that requires you to bend the wire to tightly and twists when tightening the lug.


 Try the saddle style lug. It's a far better option. I'll try and find a pic

Like these. You can get them by the box if you wanted to


----------



## RHWilks (Jul 14, 2012)

I have done it in a pinch..I didn't however double up noodles and grounds..but splitting a ground and twisting and putting under 2 screws..legal no...UL listed No..will it work..yes...best idea I had? No....best one I had at the time, when I didn't have a saddle lug or one of those GE lugs...am I proud of it..no..There I confessed...I need a hug.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

RHWilks said:


> I have done it in a pinch..I didn't however double up noodles and grounds..but splitting a ground and twisting and putting under 2 screws..legal no...UL listed No..will it work..yes...best idea I had? No....best one I had at the time, when I didn't have a saddle lug or one of those GE lugs...am I proud of it..no..There I confessed...I need a hug.


I think every one of us posting here has knowingly done something that wasn't "code worthy" at one point or another.

I truly believe that being an electrician is being able to determine what rules can be bent and which ones can be broken without compromising safety. If you have that confidence any install you've done is gonna be safe.

Pete


----------



## T&K (Jun 18, 2012)

ponyboy said:


> No kidding Pete thanks. It says right on the ground bar 4-14 awg. I don't even see how there's an argument. I agree that it's probably a non issue but it would not fly here at all, and our inspectors aren't all that sharp. It seems to me that certain demographics have different ideas of what's hack and what's not, who would've thought


 I couldn't stand it, and had to go back to the shop and open up a brand new panel. Sure enough, 4-14 is on the neutral, and 3-14 is on the equipment ground bar. That being said, I'll wave my white flag. I was debating the point based on fact, not an opinion, even though my opinion of it, and the opinion of some extremely nitpicking inspectors in this area, is it's compliant. I'll agree that the saddle lug is the most professional option, but to say that splitting #2 into two separate pieces less than one inch from the end, and landing it snug under two separate terminals is dangerous....not even close... May be a little hack in some folks eyes, but everyone does something that someone else considers hack.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I have never seen a ground bar that would accept larger than #4 but when you split the wire the actual wire under the lug is not larger than #4 because it wont fit. So I am not sure 110.3(B) could be called. Clearly you can attach a larger than a number 4 with the lug I posted so that is really not much different then what we are seeing. 

I did write a proposal to the 2017 -- we'll see if they accept it. It should clarify this install as non compliant.


----------



## Shockdoc (Mar 4, 2010)

I got my own fix to that. I remove the ground bar and drill it out to accept the larger wire.


----------



## Ultrafault (Dec 16, 2012)

Shockdoc said:


> I got my own fix to that. I remove the ground bar and drill it out to accept the larger wire.


What a hack move. Haven't you ever heard of jb weld? Just stick it on with a dob of olé jb and it's stuck for life.


----------



## vinister (Apr 11, 2012)

Parallel conductors are not the exact same thing. They are engineered and manufactured in a controlled process with known tolerances to ensure that one #6 has the same ampacity as any other #6, for example. 

The split lugs are also engineered and manufactured in a similar controlled process with known tolerances, so that half the current goes to each leg. Notice also that there is almost NO "split" length, in comparison to your hack. 

Some guy splitting conductors willy-nilly, guesstimating half the strands under each screw, has essentially no chance of matching up the 2 new "conductors". Inevitably, one will have a higher ampacity than the other. Not to mention you are ruining the twist and proper lay of the conductor's strands, introducing all kinds of air gaps and finger grease, which will insulate the conductor strands from each other. Really, you are ruining the conductor. 

So lets say you have a fault now. Most of the fault current will go through the lowest resistance 'half' of your creation. It won't be able to handle the current, and will start to burn up (a process which will be accellerated by the finger grease you coated all the strands with). Eventually the other "half" will become the lowest resistance path, so the fault current will burn up that half as well. You will loose your fault path and potentially cause serious harm, or worse. 

It's hack, its dangerous, and you should feel badly for doing it. 

Use approved parts, use them in the approved ways. You are not an engineer and your hackery is not a controlled process, and at some point, someone will pay for your malfeasance.


----------



## mikewillnot (Apr 2, 2013)

Just to clarify, and repeat: I (the OP) did not do this. I found it, took its picture out of curiosity, and posted it here. I have no idea who the perpetrator was.


----------



## vinister (Apr 11, 2012)

Sorry Mike I didn't realize that, I should have read!

You should find out who did it and teach them better!


----------

