# New code enforcement



## The_Modifier (Oct 24, 2009)

Fill out your profile, some will not reply as you have avoided the agreement to joining the forum.:wink::wink:


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Here is what the NEC states. Torque is specified by the manufacturer.



> 110.14(D) Installation. Where a tightening torque is indicated as a
> numeric value on equipment or in installation instructions
> provided by the manufacturer, a calibrated torque tool shall be
> used to achieve the indicated torque value, unless the equipment
> ...


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

This thread may help...
https://www.electriciantalk.com/f2/new-section-code-110-14-d-installation-268006/
Post #10

brian john 
Senior Member

 

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gilbert's Corner VA
Posts: 29,258 
Rewards Points: 290 









Quote:
Originally Posted by *HackWork*  
_There is no way for an inspector to test for torque specs. And what scares me is that most people think you can take a torque wrench and re-torque the item, but that will not show whether it was torqued, and it will end up over-torquing it._

BRAVO, A wise electrician.

1. A Calibrated Torque Wrench. Very few electricians have their torque wrench calibrated.

2. Then they treat it like poop left at last setting in the bottom of a toolbox. in the cold or heat. 

3. Having reviewed 1000's of IR scans loose connections are few and those we find are forgotten not under torqued so that won't change.

4. Unenforceable. Have you ever looked at a residential electricians tool bag?

NOW, if we are talking assembling switchboards or busway that is different but 8/32, 10/32, I just think it is unrealistic.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Jan 10, 2007)

Stuart Hale said:


> We have started enforcing some torque codes on outlets and in the panel.


Who is "we"?


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Speedy Petey said:


> Who is "we"?


...and how, exactly, is "we" enforcing it?


----------



## LARMGUY (Aug 22, 2010)

HackWork said:


> ...and how, exactly, is "we" enforcing it?


THAT, is the best question in this thread.

As stated before By HackWork, testing for torque on small screws is next to impossible and the readings taken are erratic and subject to interpretation by unqualified persons.


----------



## Signal1 (Feb 10, 2016)

Stuart Hale said:


> We have started enforcing some torque codes on *outlets and in the panel.* Keep getting different numbers on PSI. What does the code book say?


Tighten it. 

It's fine.


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

What a worthless code.


----------



## Service Call (Jul 9, 2011)

I finally bought a torque screwdriver in case I’m questioned by an inspector. 

I probably should take it out of the clamshell before I’m questioned[emoji37]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

The older I get, the less I care about most codes.


----------



## electricguy (Mar 22, 2007)

Our Safety Officer brought up torquing as a seminar he made the suggestion that we all were torquing were we not


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

A fellow electrician I know that is not good at their job tried to point out something about dynamic torque and blah blah engineering terms blah blah not torquing properly blah blah. 

You'd think the entire electrical system in the country was a quarter turn from coming apart.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

Note that it's illegal to terminate on the screws without a torque wrench, 
but it's still legal to backstab.


----------



## LGLS (Nov 10, 2007)

TGGT said:


> You'd think the entire electrical system in the country was a quarter turn from coming apart.



Nobody can blame the reluctance of electricians to torque, it goes back to that time they cracked that 9-gang decora plate...


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

splatz said:


> Note that it's illegal to terminate on the screws without a torque wrench,
> but it's still legal to backstab.


Why wagos work, but backstab doesn't is beyond me.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

One more worthless code, if the OP is an inspector he should be embarrassed to even think about it. I bought weras for every truck. One of them has been used. Cost me around $800 total. One inspector so far has asked and I made him feel so stupid it was sad, but I had the stupid ****ing tool. 
This code is dumber than in use covers.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

sbrn33 said:


> This code is dumber than in use covers.


I think in-use covers are a good idea.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> I think in-use covers are a good idea.


I think they are a good idea in theory. I went back to or have been nearby many of the houses I worked on with my last company (all new construction) only to see people not closing the covers correctly for Christmas lights. We used the expandable type and they just treated them like a regular flip cover. Likewise, I've seen the bubble type not properly closed either.


----------



## sbrn33 (Mar 15, 2007)

HackWork said:


> I think in-use covers are a good idea.


FO...


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

MTW said:


> I think they are a good idea in theory. I went back to or have been nearby many of the houses I worked on with my last company (all new construction) only to see people not closing the covers correctly for Christmas lights. We used the expandable type and they just treated them like a regular flip cover. Likewise, I've seen the bubble type not properly closed either.


I have used those accordion type covers in the past, still got some in the truck.

I think they are a bit too complicated for the typical homeowner, most think it is just a flip cover. Trying to open the accordion might lead to them breaking it.

I just use the extra duty bubble covers. If you pop out the notch in the bottom they will often close on their own. I installed a 50A outlet for a car charger this morning and even with the larger cord stopping the cover from closing, it still closed enough to keep water off the plug.

I wouldn't use a weatherproof GFCI in a million years, but I think bubblecovers are a good idea :biggrin:



sbrn33 said:


> FO...


 :surprise:


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

HackWork said:


> I have used those accordion type covers in the past, still got some in the truck.
> 
> I think they are a bit too complicated for the typical homeowner, most think it is just a flip cover. Trying to open the accordion might lead to them breaking it.
> 
> I just use the extra duty bubble covers. If you pop out the notch in the bottom they will often close on their own. I installed a 50A outlet for a car charger this morning and even with the larger cord stopping the cover from closing, it still closed enough to keep water off the plug.


That's all I use too, but only Taymac. I can't stand the Intermatic ones. I like to keep it simple. I think there's far too many different styles and choices of in-use cover out there now so keeping and using just the standard bubble cover is fine for most people.


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

We scared off the OP. I wonder why? :surprise::biggrin:


----------



## frenchelectrican (Mar 15, 2007)

Bird dog said:


> We scared off the OP. I wonder why? :surprise::biggrin:


I guess someone did changed the OP's three way switch in arsebackward mode and got him flying out of here. I just hope the OP did miss the Flyboy airplane when he do that .,,,

JK .,, :vs_laugh:


----------



## emtnut (Mar 1, 2015)

True story....

When the ministry of transport up here mandated torquing wheel lugs on CVOR vehicles, we started having a problem of wheels falling off.

Some genius engineer came up with the 're-torquing' 1 week after the initial 'tourqing' , because of 'settling'


Funny, when the mechanics just used the impact gun, there were no problems :vs_laugh:

As per OP. Where can I get a torque wrench in PSI ?? :biggrin:


----------



## Dan the electricman (Jan 2, 2011)

I use alumiconn connectors, on aluminum wiring, and I bought a torque screwdriver for those. Keeps me from over-tightening on the soft wire.


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

TGGT said:


> Why wagos work, but backstab doesn't is beyond me.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk





It is my understanding that receptacle backstabs use the little tiny piece of spring steel _as_ the contact surface, whereas; the wagos use the little tiny piece of spring steel to hold the conductor _against_ the contact surface.


----------



## MTW (Aug 28, 2013)

CTshockhazard said:


> It is my understanding that receptacle backstabs use the little tiny piece of spring steel _as_ the contact surface, whereas; the wagos use the little tiny piece of spring steel to hold the conductor _against_ the contact surface.


Receptacle back stabs actually use the same brass piece as the receptacle contacts. If you ever take one apart, you'll see it's all one continuous piece of brass that's been stamped and shaped to do both tasks.


----------



## jelhill (Nov 11, 2018)

mtw said:


> the older i get, the less i care about most codes.



*amen!!!!*


----------



## Wiresmith (Feb 9, 2013)

and annex I, if you can't find the manufacturers specifications


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

MTW said:


> Receptacle back stabs actually use the same brass piece as the receptacle contacts.



How wonderful, that's the info, and subsequent reasoning, for me to stop cutting the wagos off of cans and to use them in other situations. :vs_mad:




MTW said:


> If you ever take one apart, you'll see it's all one continuous piece of brass that's been stamped and shaped to do both tasks.


 I just did, and yep, sure as hell is. I even opened a really old one (slotted only) figuring they maybe changed it.



I'm no engineer, but brass wouldn't seem the best choice for spring tension.


----------



## sparkiez (Aug 1, 2015)

TGGT said:


> Why wagos work, but backstab doesn't is beyond me.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


I'm going to assume you are speaking about the push-in connectors and not the lever nuts. If you are unsure as to the strength of a lever nut, let one snap down on your finger tip.

As far as the push-in type connectors, the wire sits in the box in the push-in connectors and is relatively free of movement during the install, whereas the back-stabs are in a device that is flexed / bent / pulled / pushed / etc during its service life, moving the wires each time. The burned up back-stabs I have found have all been due to this typical service action of the receptacle. That is the reason why I'm okay with making up boxes with push-in connectors but not using backstabs. Even so, if I expect a circuit to be steadily loaded, I will usually use wirenuts anyways as this way I can have a solid mechanical connection and have increased surface area contact of the conductors.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

sparkiez said:


> I'm going to assume you are speaking about the push-in connectors and not the lever nuts. If you are unsure as to the strength of a lever nut, let one snap down on your finger tip.
> 
> *As far as the push-in type connectors, the wire sits in the box in the push-in connectors and is relatively free of movement during the install, whereas the back-stabs are in a device that is flexed / bent / pulled / pushed / etc during its service life, moving the wires each time. The burned up back-stabs I have found have all been due to this typical service action of the receptacle. *That is the reason why I'm okay with making up boxes with push-in connectors but not using backstabs. Even so, if I expect a circuit to be steadily loaded, I will usually use wirenuts anyways as this way I can have a solid mechanical connection and have increased surface area contact of the conductors.


I think this is a contributing factor, but I have found a lot of bad backstabbed connections behind fridges or other appliances that were never unplugged as well as in outlets that the homeowner said they never used.

I think there are many factors. The movement of the device as you mentioned is one, the spring tension on the wire is the second, and the poor clamping and contact area is the third.

The spring tension on the wires is because when you shape a device into the box, the wire often has spring tension pulling it either out of the backstab or sideways. When the tension pulls out of the outlet, it works it's way loose over time. When it pulls sideways, it weakens the clamp and makes the contact worsen. The difference with Wago's is the lack of negative spring tension. You are able to shape the wires into the box gently while you have access before the device goes in, so that there is very little spring tension affecting it. I also usually shape the wires into the box so that the spring tension of the conductors pushes against the Wago and into the side/top/bottom of the box. This will ensure that no conductor works it's way out after years of expansion and contraction.

And the third thing, the clamp and contact area... I have seen pictures before showing both a backstabs clamp and the Wago's cage clamp design. I can't find the picture, but it was pretty clear why the Wago holds so much better.


----------



## sparkiez (Aug 1, 2015)

HackWork said:


> And the third thing, the clamp and contact area... I have seen pictures before showing both a backstabs clamp and the Wago's cage clamp design. I can't find the picture, but it was pretty clear why the Wago holds so much better.


I know what you are referring to. There is just a small tab that hooks on the copper to keep the conductor in place. It is entirely possible for that tab to "shave" that copper and create a bad connection. It is really a tiny contact area.

The push-ins will lay against the metal tab giving more surface area contact.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)




----------



## DashDingo (Feb 11, 2018)

sbrn33 said:


> One more worthless code, if the OP is an inspector he should be embarrassed to even think about it. I bought weras for every truck. One of them has been used. Cost me around $800 total. One inspector so far has asked and I made him feel so stupid it was sad, but I had the stupid ****ing tool.
> This code is dumber than in use covers.



They’re called “one use covers”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## electricguy (Mar 22, 2007)

DashDingo said:


> They’re called “one use covers”
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Now they have to be listed as extra duty now


----------



## Tonedeaf (Nov 26, 2012)

IMHO any inspector who checks torque on a new receptacles or panel install is a ****.

You got a a guy who was never a tradesman, doesn't know the proper torque and is most likely using a tool incorrectly. Shouldn't be inspecting anything IMO.

There was an HUD inspector in South Jersey failing GFI's the whole time he had a bad tester. He thought ever GFI he tested was BAD. He was failing GFI's for 2 years. After changing a GFI 3 times I met him onsite and gave him my tester.


----------



## eddy current (Feb 28, 2009)

Tonedeaf said:


> IMHO any inspector who checks torque on a new receptacles or panel install is a ****.
> 
> You got a a guy who was never a tradesman, doesn't know the proper torque and is most likely using a tool incorrectly. Shouldn't be inspecting anything IMO.
> 
> There was an HUD inspector in South Jersey failing GFI's the whole time he had a bad tester. He thought ever GFI he tested was BAD. He was failing GFI's for 2 years. After changing a GFI 3 times I met him onsite and gave him my tester.


Lol

Our inspectors must have worked in the trade for at least 7 years and must hold a valid licence. That still does not insure they are competent inspectors but it does help a bit.


----------



## CoolWill (Jan 5, 2019)

eddy current said:


> Lol
> 
> Our inspectors must have worked in the trade for at least 7 years and must hold a valid licence. That still does not insure they are competent inspectors but it does help a bit.


I think its like that for most places that have an electrical inspector that only inspects electrical. There are still many place I come across that only have a "building inspector" or "code official" that inspects every trade. A multi-hat inspector. Really just a revenue enforcer.


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

CoolWill said:


> I think its like that for most places that have an electrical inspector that only inspects electrical. There are still many place I come across that only have a "building inspector" or "code official" that inspects every trade. A multi-hat inspector. Really just a revenue enforcer.


In NJ after so many years of being an inspector of any trade they will let them take a test in order to inspect other trades.

So not only do you have someone that never worked in the trade, but someone who has never dealt with it in any capacity.


----------



## TGGT (Oct 28, 2012)

HackWork said:


> In NJ after so many years of being an inspector of any trade they will let them take a test in order to inspect other trades.
> 
> 
> 
> So not only do you have someone that never worked in the trade, but someone who has never dealt with it in any capacity.


I dealt with a multi trade inspector. He would get distracted with plumbing issues in the middle of an inspection.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## Bird dog (Oct 27, 2015)

TGGT said:


> I dealt with a multi trade inspector. He would get distracted with plumbing issues in the middle of an inspection.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


Forget about the squirrel! Look at the electrical. :vs_mad:


----------

