PDA

View Full Version : Folded over conductor & metering base: Code violation??


ely335
11-25-2008, 07:29 AM
Folded over conductor & metering base wiring:: Code violation??


A local cable TV company is currently installing some (utility) pole mounted turn key hardware, included in the hardware is an electrical meter housing which monitors’ a limited load (say 30 amps max). A closer look reveals that the minimum lug for the meter housing calls out #8, and they used #10, and folded over the conductor to fit the lug.

I have been designing and testing (Medium and High voltage) compression connectors for over 10 years, but never used this approach. Mainly due to some Rules of Thumb past down over the years. For example, never remove strands to make the conductor fit the connector. Nor do you add strands to provide a tighter fit. Select and use the correct connector.

Please keep I mind that this is a mechanical connection and not a compression connection; would the same rules apply to a mechanical connector? Your thoughts?

On the other hand, they are also feeding the meter base from the bottom, routing the wires around to the top, terminating on the lugs. On the load side, they are connecting to the bottom lugs and routing the wires around the housing and out the top. Technically, it is correct, but leaves a great deal to wonder why. Mainly due to a different vendor hanging the same type of pole mounted hardware, but it connected using the correct minimum size wire and comes in at the top and out from the bottom.

Any installation errors or code violations here??

ryan_618
11-25-2008, 09:26 AM
I would cite 110.3(B) for the listing of the lugs. The conductors aren't listed or identified for that size of wires.

iwire
11-25-2008, 10:18 AM
I would be surprised if the NEC even applies to this installation.

local cable TV company is currently installing some (utility) pole mounted

That sounds to me like it is outside the scope of the NEC.

ptonsparky
11-25-2008, 12:58 PM
Okay, outside the NEC, now say I am installing a temp service & do the same thing, violation or not?

iwire
11-25-2008, 01:07 PM
Okay, outside the NEC, now say I am installing a temp service & do the same thing, violation or not?

IMO yes.

Your temp is not under the exclusive control of a utility

Cow
11-25-2008, 09:58 PM
I guess this isn't a good time to admit I've folded over a #14 to better fit a yellow buttsplice.:smile:

iaov
11-25-2008, 10:02 PM
I guess this isn't a good time to admit I've folded over a #14 to better fit a yellow buttsplice.:smile:Blaphemer,heretic!!:D

ptonsparky
11-25-2008, 10:20 PM
The lug gives a min & max range for wire size. Anything in between should suffice. Bending a wire does not make it two conductors.

ely335
11-26-2008, 06:26 AM
Thank you for you replies.

I greatly appreciate your time and comments.


E~:smile:

winnie
11-26-2008, 09:34 AM
For what its worth, I suspect that a lug designed and tested for a minimum conductor size of #8 would 'work fine' with #10 doubled over...but that it has not been tested as suitable for such.

A #10 doubled over will have a total cross section of a #7, but the stranding (if stranded wire is used) will be quite different than what the lug was tested with. So I won't claim that this connection is certainly safe.

I wonder how difficult/costly getting a 'strange' installation validated by UL would be....

-Jon