# When a wire is too large for the lug and you find this.......



## jar546 (Dec 17, 2018)

I don't remember if this was a GEC or EGC, but, either way my question to you is:

Is this a violation?  If so, what code section would you cite?


----------



## north star (Dec 17, 2018)

*@ ~ @*

This installation may or may not be acceptable.
Is that panel rated to have multiple conductors
under each screw ?.......If so, then I see no
violation........If not, then a properly sized, solid
conductor may need to be installed.

*@ ~ @*


----------



## ICE (Dec 17, 2018)

The terminals are obviously too small for the wire size.   That's one way of doing it.


----------



## Mark K (Dec 18, 2018)

The larger the wire  the lower the resistance which means that less heat is produced when the current limited by the fuse or circuit breaker flows through the wire.  Seems to me that this makes it safer.  The connection only need to be adequate to deal with the current that can flow through the circuit.

You could get the same effect if you ran two wires in parallel.

By installing half of the strands in two lugs that are electrically connected you have provided redundancy.  What is there not to like?

Why would you penalize somebody for providing a better installation?


----------



## jar546 (Dec 18, 2018)

Mark K said:


> ................................................................Why would you penalize somebody for providing a better installation?



Because it is an NEC code violation......

My opinion does not matter because it is a clear violation of the NEC.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 18, 2018)

Would this be allowed under the NEC code? It would allow the stranded wire to be intact.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 18, 2018)

Would this be acceptable code compliant solution?


----------



## ADAguy (Dec 18, 2018)

good stuff! This is why this is the "best" forum ever. 
Logic and code at one location. Thanks guys.


----------



## ICE (Dec 18, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> Would this be acceptable code compliant solution?


Not much of a difference from the divided strands in the picture.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 18, 2018)

Yes to both of you above, provided the new lug is rated for the size wire they are using.  Lugs are rated for a minimum and maximum size plus number of conductors per terminal.  In the case of the OP pic that I posted, there is not one single terminal bar I can find that is rated for that application.  It is not about us being nitpicky, it is about the installer making a code compliant installation.  Most electrical contractor trucks have those on them anyway.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 18, 2018)

ICE said:


> Not much of a difference from the divided strands in the picture.



Other than the fact that the existing installation does not meet the code or listing of the equipment and the part posted above is listed for that application.  Other than that, both methods would probably work fine, it's just that I am not qualified or arrogant enough to determine that what they did was better than what UL listing and testing approved with the proper part.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 18, 2018)

ICE said:


> Not much of a difference from the divided strands in the picture.


5 strands in one lug 3 in the other from what I can see in the picture.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 18, 2018)

mtlogcabin said:


> 5 strands in one lug 3 in the other from what I can see in the picture.



Yep, at best, 100% of the panels and terminal bars that I have seen have listing for up to (2) #14 or (2) #12 but never more than that.  Once we get to #10 and larger, it is always just (1) of those.  I am talking about terminal bars like the one in the photo, not lugs in general.

So the installer has a choice of installing the correct bar, buying a lug for that terminal bar OR finding another listed terminal or lug to attach the wire to.


----------



## ICE (Dec 18, 2018)

What wire has eight strands?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 19, 2018)

It's could be 7-stranded, but who's counting?


----------



## Mark K (Dec 19, 2018)

I am surprised when an building official expresses humility.  The act of taking on the job of a building official is an arrogant act.  You have to be arrogant to take on the job where you are responsible for knowing the building code provisions related to architecture, structural engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering.  In addition the building official passes on the qualifications of the listing entity which  implies that he knows what they do  There is noting in the NEC that states that UL is an acceptable listing organization.  I am a structural engineer but I am not that arrogant.

Strictly speaking the standards listen in Appendix A are not a formal part of the code thus there are no standards for many of the components.  you just believe what they tell you.

I suggest that UL uses this power to distort the market in their favor.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 20, 2018)

Mark K said:


> I am surprised when an building official expresses humility.  The act of taking on the job of a building official is an arrogant act.  You have to be arrogant to take on the job where you are responsible for knowing the building code provisions related to architecture, structural engineering, electrical engineering, and mechanical engineering.  In addition the building official passes on the qualifications of the listing entity which  implies that he knows what they do  There is noting in the NEC that states that UL is an acceptable listing organization.  I am a structural engineer but I am not that arrogant.
> 
> Strictly speaking the standards listen in Appendix A are not a formal part of the code thus there are no standards for many of the components.  you just believe what they tell you.
> 
> I suggest that UL uses this power to distort the market in their favor.



UL is not the only listing agency that most (at least in s. Florida) approve.  Any testing laboratory on the NRTL is approved to list a product.  I don't agree that taking on the job of a building official is arrogant.  All officials, inspectors and plan reviewers are limited in their capacity by the laws of the state they live in and the prescriptive code that they enforce.  Engineering is also limited to standard engineering practices and when you step outside those principles, you can always design and have that design goes through testing to prove what you believe your design can do.  

Therefore, when a manufacturer builds and tests a product but does not include uses like the pic in my OP, the inspector has no authority to approve something that the manufacturer and testing laboratories have not tested.  If the inspector did approve it because of a non-factual belief, that would be arrogant.


----------



## ICE (Dec 20, 2018)

jar546 said:


> If the inspector did approve it because of a non-factual belief, that would be arrogant.



Guilty as charged.

It's not like I never see a lug that you would like.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 20, 2018)

An arrogant person would never work in a public sector job of any capacity if I was the one hiring.
First they are a public servant and arrogant person could never perform the job of a servant with a attitude. Their arrogance would always be apparent. 
You can never train "personality" so some will never work for me no matter what experience or education level they may have


----------



## ICE (Dec 20, 2018)

Jeff tosses words around that do not fit the situation.  In his world any deviation from pure code is arrogance on the part of the inspector. 

mtlogcabin,
A number of people here have said that they would never work with me.  Another number of people have said that they would like the opportunity. 

Arrogant:
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
"he's arrogant and opinionated"
synonyms: haughty, conceited, self-important, egotistic, full of oneself, superior; More
overbearing, pompous, bumptious, presumptuous, imperious, overweening;
proud, immodest;
_informal_high and mighty, too big for one's britches, too big for one's boots, big-headed, puffed up;
_rare_hubristic
"success has made him arrogant"
antonyms: modest


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 20, 2018)

ice I believe a majority of an inspector/building officials job is educating contractors/owners and this has to be done with a certain amount of humility so as one does not come across as arrogant because it is a turn off to most people and they will not hear half of what a person with an arrogant attitude says.

You can win people to your side more easily by gentle persuasion and flattery than by arrogant confrontation.


----------



## linnrg (Dec 20, 2018)

I guess that sometimes I may have been arrogant - or maybe I was justifiably holding my ground.  It is not often but I have had to deal with confrontation.

Everyone of us has had to deal with both bad and good contractors,
Everyone of us has had to deal with both bad and good designers,

Everyday we see both good construction and shoddy construction.  Because I work in a smaller jurisdiction I do not see the level of bad work that some of you do.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 20, 2018)

*Win People to Your Way of Thinking*

*Principle #13: Begin in a friendly way.*

If we aren't open and friendly, winning people to our way of thinking is nearly impossible. _Dale Carnegie_


----------



## ICE (Dec 20, 2018)

Today I went to 16 addresses and wrote 41 corrections.  I paid attention to near 30 corrections that I wrote previously.  So there was 71 violations that I dealt with.  I didn't stop between 9:00 am to 2:20 pm.  No lunch....no breaks.  ...... As I wrote the 41 corrections I explained what was wrong to whomever was there.  Did I win them over to appreciating what I do....Ya well no I don't think so..... I really don't concern myself with that or educating contractors and why would I take the time to train homeowners?

Today I collected lugs for Jeff.  If I had his address I just might send them.


The pipe was cut out so I could see if the pipe was reamed.  The job is a residential re-pipe.  It took four trips before the plumber showed up.  He said that he talked with my co-worker while I was out and he was told that he didn't have to cut out any pipe.  I believed him.




The SGB5 clamp was something one of the electricians thought I should have.  He couldn't think of a situation where he would need one.

As my dumb luck would have it, I ran into this today.  I had one of the lugs in my pocket so explaining it was easy enough....he wanted me to give it to him....and I probably should have as easy as they are to come by.






But here's the thing about that.  The same guy did this.  I had written a correction to install a bonding bushing where the EMT enters through an intact KO.  So he bonded the lock-ring to the intact KO.


 The last time that I was there the contractor was belligerent.  I got the song and dance about AFCI protection and he was dismissive about all of the corrections.  This time he did all of the corrections but was still wrong on a few.   Now how much should I care about winning this guy over?  He is a mean person and not at all smart.  Life is short and so is the time that I spend with him.


----------



## jar546 (Dec 20, 2018)

Why is a bond bushing required?  Don't know the full scope of what we are looking at by the closeup pic?


----------



## ICE (Dec 20, 2018)

jar546 said:


> Why is a bond bushing required?  Don't know the full scope of what we are looking at by the closeup pic?


It is a service enclosure with a metal raceway through an intact KO.  The picture is not clear but one of the knockouts is left in place.

_250.92(B)
Method of Bonding at the Service. Bonding jumpers meeting the requirements of this article shall be used around impaired connections, such as reducing washers or oversized, concentric, or eccentric knockouts. Standard locknuts or bushings shall not be the only means for the bonding required by this section but shall be permitted to be installed to make a mechanical connection of the raceway(s). _


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 21, 2018)

Third picture in post #24

Isn't that a bonding screw that's bent and not being used? and a regular lock nut on the other?


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 21, 2018)

The bonding screw is purposely bent like that on the bonding lock-nut, correct?


----------

