# Bundling Wires



## joesparky28 (Mar 12, 2015)

I see this every day at work. Would this not be a code violation due to this being considered bundling wires?


----------



## 210860 (Apr 12, 2021)

Depending on what era NFPA70 you are using

NFPA 2017- Article Section 310.15(B)(3)
NFPA 2020- Article Section 310.15(C)(1) Again..Without knowing which era book your using.. 


Basically similar wordage..

(*NEC2017)* 310.15(B)(3)(A) _*More than Three Current -Carrying Conductors*_
* *Adjustment Factors*.- or where a single conductor(s) or multiconductor cables are installed *without maintaining spacing for a continuous length* *longer than 24 inches* and are not installed in raceway(s), the allowable ampacity of each conductor shall be reduced as shown in Table 310.15(B)(3)(A)

*OR*-

*(NEC2020)* 310.15(C)(1) **Adjustment Factors*-* Where more than Three Current-Carrying Conductors.*(Table 310.15(C)(1)

* Basically, if the bundled single conductors in the above loadcenter, *are more than 3 current-carrying conductors & bundled longer than 24" *the adjustment factors per table, will apply.


----------



## SWDweller (Dec 9, 2020)

Never has been where I live in southern Arizona. I typically derate any wire if it goes outside.
It can get toasty hereabouts.


----------



## SteveBayshore (Apr 7, 2013)

I would be praising the fact that the terminal screws look like they were torque marked in blue. We always use red. Criticizing, I do see a couple of terminations with a strand out of place.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Dell3c said:


> * Basically, if the bundled single conductors in the above loadcenter, *are more than 3 current-carrying conductors & bundled longer than 24" *the adjustment factors per table, will apply.



I disagree. Look at note 1 to the table. This table is for conductors in a raceway or cable, not in an enclosure



> 1*Number of conductors is the total number of conductors in the
> raceway or cable,* including spare conductors. The count shall be
> adjusted in accordance with 310.15(B)(5) and (6). The count shall not
> include conductors that are connected to electrical components that
> cannot be simultaneously energized.


----------



## 210860 (Apr 12, 2021)

Good morning from West Coast Dennis. 
(yawn) me just now rising.. True, it's not installed in raceway or cable assembly. But the way I'm interpreting is clear description, mid-way, first sentence denoting "single conductor" not installed in raceways.

310.15(C)(1)_ N_
-or *where single conductors *or multiconductor cables *not installed in raceways are installed without maintaining spacing for a continuous length longer than 600mm (24 in.).*


_Informational Note No.1 See Annex B for adjustment factors for more than three current carrying conductors in a* raceway or cable *with load diversity.

Informational Note No. 2. 
366.23(A) Sheet Metal Auxiliary Gutters: The Adjustment factor 310.15(E) exceeds 30 @ cross-sectional area-
376.(22)(B)Metal Wireways The adjustment factors 310.15(C)(1) shall be applied where number exceeds 30 @ cross-sectional ar area -

* neither note is applying...
as stated in the above (single conductors) not install in raceway are installed without maintaining spacing- longer than 24 inches.


_


----------



## 205490 (Jun 23, 2020)

Bundling & branching can be done without zip ties even on strand. Wires are landed on wrong side of screw. All 19 strands should be landed. Merely my .02


----------



## wiz1997 (Mar 30, 2021)

CA C-10 said:


> Bundling & branching can be done without zip ties even on strand. Wires are landed on wrong side of screw. All 19 strands should be landed. Merely my .02


Agree 100% about ty-wraps.
Looks pretty for awhile.
Thought the same about the wire landing on the wrong side of the screw.
Wire should be landed so the screw pulls the wire under the screw rather than push it out from under the screw.


----------



## splatz (May 23, 2015)

CA C-10 said:


> Wires are landed on wrong side of screw.





wiz1997 said:


> Thought the same about the wire landing on the wrong side of the screw.
> Wire should be landed so the screw pulls the wire under the screw rather than push it out from under the screw.


I would have done it on the other side of the screw out of habit from loops around plain screw terminals, but I would have thought with the pressure plate it's acceptable. Unless the Square D instructions say which side the first wire has to go.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Dell3c said:


> Good morning from West Coast Dennis.
> (yawn) me just now rising.. True, it's not installed in raceway or cable assembly. But the way I'm interpreting is clear description, mid-way, first sentence denoting "single conductor" not installed in raceways.
> 
> 310.15(C)(1)_ N_
> ...


I hear you but IMO, that is talking about single conductors in a cable tray but I may be wrong. I have never seen anyone derate in a panelboard probably because there is so much space for the conductors to breathe.


----------



## 99cents (Aug 20, 2012)

That’s why my panels look like a spaghetti mess, to avoid bundling. Umm, yeah, that’s it, bundling.


----------



## Malywr (Jan 23, 2018)

splatz said:


> I would have done it on the other side of the screw out of habit from loops around plain screw terminals, but I would have thought with the pressure plate it's acceptable. Unless the Square D instructions say which side the first wire has to go.


Square D allowed 2 conductors under one screw pressure plate L and R
It is marked on breaker


----------



## 210860 (Apr 12, 2021)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I hear you but IMO, that is talking about single conductors in a cable tray but I may be wrong. I have never seen anyone derate in a panelboard probably because there is so much space for the conductors to breathe.


Understandable Dennis. Somebody having to bring it to my attention also.

Through years passed Dennis, who hasn't attempted "dressing the wiring" in/a panel, like panel in above. But w/one difference for me personally, I've always tried rolling the "head of tie-wrap" behind the conductors (outa sight) attempting cleaner-looking presentation.

And again....Article 392 Cable Trays... different set of standards...

Have a safe afternoon Dennis..


----------



## joe-nwt (Mar 28, 2019)

If you take the tie-wraps off but still leave the wires where they are, is it still bundling?


----------



## 210860 (Apr 12, 2021)

joe-nwt said:


> If you take the tie-wraps off but still leave the wires where they are, is it still bundling?


 My personal opinion, No.. I wouldn't consider that "bundling" if breaking the 'ties' & forming the wires as you are suggesting. But my name doesn't appear anywhere, in front of that book either.
The NFPA70 is denoting in length @ 24 inches.
*There's not violation @ 23.5 inches....


----------



## mburtis (Sep 1, 2018)

The only problem I have with it is the amount of blood I lose when the zip ties cut my arm off.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

Dell3c said:


> My personal opinion, No.. I wouldn't consider that "bundling" if breaking the 'ties' & forming the wires as you are suggesting. But my name doesn't appear anywhere, in front of that book either.
> The NFPA70 is denoting in length @ 24 inches.
> *There's not violation @ 23.5 inches....



You see that doesn't make sense. The tie wrap only gathers the wire in a bundle in one spot not the 24" required to qualify for de-rating. I see the group as bundling regardless of the tie wrap. I didn't realize the tie wrap was the issue.


----------



## 210860 (Apr 12, 2021)

Yeah, I know.. Dennis.. I'm also not in fullest of agreement w/ everything written between both cover(s) of NFPA70.
*But when in field, part of my job is to install to those standard(s). I've been in several code classes in past where Chief Code Enforcement Officials were instructing (remember one in particular) fellow Inspector(s) involving excerpts (from NFPA70) but after the session ending, saying it makes no sense..
I can remember one instance "vividly" where a definition changed in the Code Book three(3) times (over eras of yrs). And every time, this Chief Code Enforcement Officer/Instructor was fighting it, the whole time. And his personal off- the-record interpretation, made perfect sense.. Maybe that's why Code Panels, kept changing that particular definition(?)

So in that respect the term "Bunding" is not being defined in Article 100.. And maybe it should be Dennis.

*Another reason why interjecting in previous quote: "My name doesn't appear anywhere, in the front of that book".
That wasn't intended as being rude reply Dennis., But just a follower of printed black & white....


----------



## argile_tile (Aug 12, 2021)

the OP abandoned the thread, cut and run !

there are no forward problems with labeled wires being on separate breakers, the NEC requires labeling sometimes. optional labeling is not un-allowed.

due to bending rules and box sizes you couldn't possibly keep bundles inside a panel perfect. That's why you need labels.


----------



## Veteran Sparky (Apr 21, 2021)

In my experience most inspectors would not say anything about wires ty wrapped like you have it in that panel. It looks neat, and obviously you take pride in the work. 
That being said...it is frowned upon to ty wrap the wires that tight. When I worked industrial, and would terminate hundreds of wires in large factory control panels, we took great effort to ty wrap everything tight and neat so it looked like it was done factory assembled. However, I have since changed that practice and now, I will leave ty wraps loose so that there is space in between the conductors. I don't tighten any ty wraps in a panel board or load center.


----------



## VELOCI3 (Aug 15, 2019)

23 years and never had an inspector ask to see inside panels, switchgear or MCC’s


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

VELOCI3 said:


> 23 years and never had an inspector ask to see inside panels, switchgear or MCC’s
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


30 years here and inspectors check almost every panel we do. Are you telling me you get service inspections without looking at the service?


----------



## VELOCI3 (Aug 15, 2019)

McClary’s Electrical said:


> 30 years here and inspectors check almost every panel we do. Are you telling me you get service inspections without looking at the service?


Yes. Though when I worked on a new substation for the poco they had someone witness and log every nut and bolt in the busswork and gear. Also had to test across each of those with a micro-ohmmeter each time. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## oldsparky52 (Feb 25, 2020)

Malywr said:


> Square D allowed 2 conductors under one screw pressure plate L and R
> It is marked on breaker


YEA, well ..... with 1 conductor it's still on the wrong side of the screw.!


----------



## MHElectric (Oct 14, 2011)

Pretty sure all QO breaker are all rated for 2 conductors. It says it either on the breaker or the inside of the panel. So you can land the wire on either side of the screws.

And we open the panel up for the inspector on about 95% of everything. Only if they tell us not to, would we not do it.


----------



## Tonedeaf (Nov 26, 2012)

No code violation here........I personally love bird's nests when i open panels?


----------



## 210860 (Apr 12, 2021)

VELOCI3 said:


> 23 years and never had an inspector ask to see inside panels, switchgear or MCC’s
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


VELOC13 good morning from the W.Coast. I'm going say this w/ highest respect possible, can be delivered per a keyboard.. 
*Yes, I can believe that.. You sir are LU#3. 
*I don't believe having to add anything else. *My Respect.....


----------



## asweetman95 (7 mo ago)

Dennis Alwon said:


> I disagree. Look at note 1 to the table. This table is for conductors in a raceway or cable, not in an enclosure


 This section is for derating arcording to number of conductors. It says for conductors in conduit, but you are directed to use the same table for bundling


----------

