Twisting ground wires in romex

[M. D.]

I've stated this before but, I once worked with a kid doing residential ,.who would take all the grounds sort them by size #12 here #14 there and then stick them in the chuck of his batt. drill and twist em up real tight pretty ... can't say I much cared for it .

 

[electricfobwarrior]

Does the code allow to twist all romex ground wires in a box and then pigtail to a gr

Does the code allow to twist all romex ground wires in a box and then pigtail to a gr

Alot of this has to do with your relationship with the inspector. You go out of your way to prove them wrong, they can easily perform a much more thorough investiagation of your jobsite and find many more issues that will deter your productivity. My adivce, do what the inspector says, he'll pass your job, and you'll have a much more healthier relationship in the future. Good Luck!

 

[paul]

Sounds like a waste of time. Making it "pretty" so that you can bury it where it rarely gets seen. I've seen it plenty of times, even tried it in my apprentice days. Now it gets a wirenut and I move on to the next one.

 

[eprice]

Alot of this has to do with your relationship with the inspector. You go out of your way to prove them wrong, they can easily perform a much more thorough investiagation of your jobsite and find many more issues that will deter your productivity. My adivce, do what the inspector says, he'll pass your job, and you'll have a much more healthier relationship in the future. Good Luck!

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The inspector mentioned in this thread made the correct call. Just twisting the wires without any other connector is not code compliant. (I bet the inspector would have accepted a wire nut in lieu of the barrel crimp and I doubt soldering was even discussed). The code section sited by 480sparky in post #3 contains the requirement, and everyone else has agreed. (I think Roger was just stirring the pot).

 

[Ruff-N]

Does the code allow to twist all romex ground wires in a box and then pigtail to a ground screw without using a copper barrel crimp or green wire nut?
I had about 3 inches of twist, but the inspector wanted barrel crimps.

Its odd that this is just now become and issue on one of your installs, the date on your OP is 07-15-2010, hasn't any inspector ever brought this up as an issue/code violation. From what I read on your OP, you just twist the grounds together and pigtail to the ground screw on the box and or the ground screw on the receptacle without installing a wire nut or cpimp. This is not a stab at you its just odd that this is the first time this has been an issue, correct me if I'm wrong :-?

 

[suemarkp]

Twisting all the grounds in a panel makes rework a pain. My current Service has many bundles of 5 to 6 grounding wires all twisted. Then, they just left one long to go to the neutral bar. This was probably because the panel had no separate grounding bar and there weren't enough neutral holes to go around. But the worse offense was not using a pressure connector on the wire bundle.

Fixing this was a pain. All these bundles were way back in the panel (which is a good place for grounds). I'm afraid of a bare ground flinging out and hitting an energized Service wire when untwisting this mess and rerouting things.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I agree. IMO there should be no twisting other than the part that's under the wire nut.

The instructions for one brand of wirenuts says to twist until you see two complete twists beyond the bottom of the wirenut.

 

[hillbilly1]

Does the code allow to twist all romex ground wires in a box and then pigtail to a ground screw without using a copper barrel crimp or green wire nut?
I had about 3 inches of twist, but the inspector wanted barrel crimps.

Hello Curt, yes I did read the question correctly and it asked if a barrel crimp or "green" wire nut was required which neither one is specifically required, any approved method of splicing conductors is fine. I never implied that "twisting only" was an approved method.

Roger

I took it as the OP was implying that twisting alone was acceptable. He did not mention a wire nut or solder or any other approved means,

 

[roger]

I took it as the OP was implying that twisting alone was acceptable. He did not mention a wire nut or solder or any other approved means,

And it is apparent that we are all reading and adding our interpretation into the OPers question.

When the OPer made a point to say

but the inspector wanted barrel crimps.

I interpreted the OP as saying the inspector would only accept a crimp, my answer was based the same way I would approach an exam question if specifics were included in the question.

Roger

 

[infinity]

The instructions for one brand of wirenuts says to twist until you see two complete twists beyond the bottom of the wirenut.

I'm assuming that you mean only EGC's? I wouldn't want to see two twists exposed on the hot legs. If so you would get on to my next pet-peeve, tape on wirenuts.

 

[Ruff-N]

The instructions for one brand of wirenuts says to twist until you see two complete twists beyond the bottom of the wirenut.

That would be time consumming if you have to count how many twist you can see beyond the bottom of the wire nut. Just use WAGOS and look no twisting problem solved.

 

[jaylectricity]

I'm assuming that you mean only EGC's? I wouldn't want to see two twists exposed on the hot legs. If so you would get on to my next pet-peeve, tape on wirenuts.

He didn't say bare or exposed...Two twists of the wire below the bottom of the wirenut. Meaning, the wire has been twisted enough that even the insulated part of the conductor has two twists in it.

 

[infinity]

He didn't say bare or exposed...Two twists of the wire below the bottom of the wirenut. Meaning, the wire has been twisted enough that even the insulated part of the conductor has two twists in it.

Good point.

 

[growler]

When the OPer made a point to say I interpreted the OP as saying the inspector would only accept a crimp, my answer was based the same way I would approach an exam question if specifics were included in the question.

Roger

That may well be what he ment. In this area ( county ) they do want crimps and not wire nuts for residential work.

Some jurisdictions will accept wire nuts and others will not. I know what the code says but never forget that if you have to work in a jurisdiction some things are just not worth fighting over.

I use crimp connectors for grounds because they are acceptable in all jurisdictions where I work and it's not that big of a deal.

 

[Mgraw]

In one jurisdiction I use to work in if it was NM you had to use green wire nuts.

 

[electricmanscott]

That may well be what he ment. In this area ( county ) they do want crimps and not wire nuts for residential work.

Some jurisdictions will accept wire nuts and others will not. I know what the code says but never forget that if you have to work in a jurisdiction some things are just not worth fighting over.

I use crimp connectors for grounds because they are acceptable in all jurisdictions where I work and it's not that big of a deal.

There are some real dumbasses with more power than they should ever be trusted with. :roll:

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I'm assuming that you mean only EGC's? I wouldn't want to see two twists exposed on the hot legs. If so you would get on to my next pet-peeve, tape on wirenuts.

I am not saying that the wire has to be bare below the wirenut, just that there must be two visible twists of the wire below the wire nut.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Twisting the EGCs together with out any type of connection device was very common in this area when I started. Most of them would have about 2" of the EGCs twisted tightly together and tucked in the back of the box.

While a code violation, I really doubt that anything less than the most sensitive lab meter would show any difference between the twisted only installation and one using a wirenut or a crimp.

 

[paul]

In one jurisdiction I use to work in if it was NM you had to use green wire nuts.

Local codes or just pulled out of their hind ends?

 

[Mgraw]

Originally the latter but when people complained it became a ordinance. But all local code amendments became null and void in 2007 so I don't know what they do overthere now.