Acceptable Method to Wire Outlet

[realolman]

Would looping the conductors and continuing them on to the next box without cutting, have any effect on calculating box fill?

Would the looped conductors be counted as one or two?

 

[al hildenbrand]

Would looping the conductors and continuing them on to the next box without cutting, have any effect on calculating box fill?

Would the looped conductors be counted as one or two?

Given that the OP's looped conductors are spliced, they'd count as two.

Now the unspliced loop, connected to the device terminals, has to satisfy the free length requirement of 300.14, then 314.16(B)(1) says, in part, :

2008 NEC
314.16(B)(1)

. . . Each loop or coil of unbroken conductor not less than twice the minimum length required for free conductors in 300.14 shall be counted twice. . . .

 

[Power Tech]

There is nothing wrong with looping a wire.

In theory you are taking out a week point.

I rock climb and like to compare a splice to a knot.

It is one less knot to fail.

It's actually one less wire in the box. Whether we required to count it or not.

 

[R Schick]

This was your original concern.

Is it the tab you are worried about or the screws?

The concern is the screw connection increasing in impedance to the point that the connection overheats.

 

[Cold Fusion]

The concern is the screw connection increasing in impedance to the point that the connection overheats.

Not a suggestion, just curious-
Have you considered using backwired, federal spec receptacles? (as jon mentioned in post 6)

That's been my choice for the last 20 years (maybe even 30 - can't remember

cf)

 

[220/221]

By removing the outlet itself as a feed to downstream loads, failure modes such as these can be avoided.

I don't think I've ever seen a failure in the tab. The first pic doesn't look like tab failure and the second one is anyone's guess....but I'd guess loose terminals instead of tab failure.

 

[flashlight]

It is one less knot to fail.

It's actually one less wire in the box. Whether we required to count it or not.

I agree. I was taught it was good practice to do this in a MWBC. It eliminates the chance for the neutral to be compromised resulting in high or low voltages up- and downstream.

 

[daleuger]

I've never seen or done this peronally......BUT one benefit I can possibly see from the OP's method is like was said earlier if you lose one receptacle from a bad connection or whatever may be the case the ones downstream would not be affected, and that in turn could help speed up troubleshooting if it came to that. I'd be a little curious/concerned how it would work out rolling up loops in a box attached to the receptacle though.

 

[winnie]

As the OP described the installation, the 'mid span' stripped area was near the end of one piece of wire (say coming from a conduit or cable), and continued on to a wire-nut which was used to make a splice to another piece of wire, going on to the next part of the circuit.

Since you already have the wire-nut in the junction box, IMHO it makes much more sense to run a pigtail to the receptacle and have _three_ wires spliced in the wire-nut. This offers the benefit of removing the receptacle from the circuit, without the added difficulty of the 'mid span' stripped area. There is presumably some difference between the 2 wire splice and the 3 wire splice, but I don't think that this is significant.

hurk27 in post#20 mentions yet another approach, which eliminated the wire-nut splice. In this case, the conductor enters the box, is mid-span stripped and looped on the device, and then exits the box, without ever being cut or spliced. Here I can see a tangible benefit of having no splice in the wire to fail at all. I am not in a position to argue cost versus benefit of the more difficult stripping versus the elimination of a wire-nut, but it sounds like a reasonable approach to me. I bet that in areas where this is done frequently, people get good at quickly stripping the middle of runs.

-Jon

 

[K8MHZ]

I've never seen or done this peronally......BUT one benefit I can possibly see from the OP's method is like was said earlier if you lose one receptacle from a bad connection or whatever may be the case the ones downstream would not be affected, and that in turn could help speed up troubleshooting if it came to that. I'd be a little curious/concerned how it would work out rolling up loops in a box attached to the receptacle though.

You won't lose downstream receptacles if you pigtail each receptacle.

 

[flashlight]

As the OP described the installation, the 'mid span' stripped area was near the end of one piece of wire (say coming from a conduit or cable), and continued on to a wire-nut which was used to make a splice to another piece of wire, going on to the next part of the circuit.

-Jon

Sorry if I am misinterpreting this-- What I believe the OP meant was that there was no wirenut involved for this conductor in the box. The white conductor is pulled into the box, "looped" or bent over, and sent out of the box to next point. Then stripped approx 3/4 in. at the terminus of the loop and squeezed around the terminal screw.

 

[daleuger]

You won't lose downstream receptacles if you pigtail each receptacle.

You're right....brain fart...:roll:

 

[hurk27]

hurk27 in post#20 mentions yet another approach, which eliminated the wire-nut splice. In this case, the conductor enters the box, is mid-span stripped and looped on the device, and then exits the box, without ever being cut or spliced. Here I can see a tangible benefit of having no splice in the wire to fail at all. I am not in a position to argue cost versus benefit of the more difficult stripping versus the elimination of a wire-nut, but it sounds like a reasonable approach to me. I bet that in areas where this is done frequently, people get good at quickly stripping the middle of runs.-Jon

I got real good at it, using the proper size stripper hole on the wire strippers, just cut the insulation in two places about an 1" apart, then using your lineman's clamp down on the insulation that is being removed, pinching it against the wire, then pull off the section of insulation, bend in the middle of the bare spot, and crimp around screw, tighten and your done.

 

[M. D.]

I got real good at it, using the proper size stripper hole on the wire strippers, just cut the insulation in two places about an 1" apart, then using your lineman's clamp down on the insulation that is being removed, pinching it against the wire, then pull off the section of insulation, bend in the middle of the bare spot, and crimp around screw, tighten and your done.

I've done this many times in the past still do it sometimes ,.. not sure why I have become less likely to use this method now? Maybe the boxes are bigger ?

The only section that might be an issue other than the free conductor issue is 110.3(b).. my favorite code section not sure looping constitutes a 3\4 loop around the terminal . If I were far from home and did not know the inspection dept,...... I would not use the loop through method

this is from leviton

Connect wires per WIRING DIAGRAM as follows:
NOTE: Side wire terminals accept up to #10 AWG
wire.
TO SIDE WIRE:
? Loop wires clockwise 3/4 turn around terminal
screws.
? Green or bare copper wall box wire (Ground)
to Green screw.
? Line 1 Black (Hot) wall box wire to Brass screw.
? Line 2 Black (Hot) wall box wire to remaining
Brass screw.
? White (Neutral 1) wall box wire to Silver screw.

 

[K8MHZ]

You're right....brain fart...:roll:

Who are you calling a brain fart?

 

[augie47]

There is one local contractor who uses the "loop" method on all his circuits. I find his explanation that it eliminates a number of connections, thus a number of potential problems to have merit. When you look at a circuit with 10 outlets think about how many potential loose connections you have with the conventional method versus a continual loop.
I have tried to do it "his way" and found it labor intensive, but he insists, once you learn how, it's quicker.
As far a box fill, 314.16(B)(1) seems to indicate that if the conductor passes thru without "termination" it counts as one. Since this conductor does "terminate" I would think it still counts at two.
Personally I don't see a violation, even on a MWBC.