Securing Double-Hole Lugs

[DataCenterGuy]

Contractor used double-hole lugs but attached with only one bolt. Manufacturer won't start UPS, claiming a Code Violation. Contractor disagrees. Obviously, it would make sense to use two bolts, but the best I can find in the Code is 110.14 (A): "Connection of conductors to terminal parts shall ensure a throoughly good connection - etc." Contractor says single bolt is tight and good enough. Engineer didn't spec double-hole lugs. Any Code or other backup for this stupid controversy??

 

[jumper]

110.3(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment
shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions
included in the listing or labeling.

 

[raider1]

I agree with Derek,

What does the installation instructions that came with the equipment say about the number of bolts required for connection?

Chris

 

[petersonra]

I agree with Derek,

What does the installation instructions that came with the equipment say about the number of bolts required for connection?

Chris

I had a chat with panduit about what size bolts to use once that was enlightening. My guess is that there is nothing in the instructions that requires two bolts be used. It is solely for convenience when mating up to lugs with two holes.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Since lugs for the same size conductor are made with one hole, then one bolt should provide an adaquate electrical connection. In some cases the use of two hole lugs and two bolts is used to prevent the lug from twisting at the terminations, especially under high fault currents.

 

[infinity]

Since lugs for the same size conductor are made with one hole, then one bolt should provide an adaquate electrical connection. In some cases the use of two hole lugs and two bolts is used to prevent the lug from twisting at the terminations, especially under high fault currents.

I agree, unless the listing requires using two bolts which I doubt.

 

[DataCenterGuy]

Thanks! Case Closed !

Thanks! Case Closed !

Thanks all. I had considered the "Listed for the purpose" approach, but didn't yet have access to the specific information. This tells me where this needs to go, which is probably nowhere.