Grounding electrode 250.64(D)

Status
Not open for further replies.
jap said:
I disagree.

To me, the bolt and nut have very little to do with the actual connection of the lug to the bar itself.

The bolt probably doesn't even contact the inside diameter of the drilled hole in the bar.
Click to expand...

OK. Take away the bolt and nut. There is no longer a CONNECTION.
 
On a lighter note,,, most bolts and nuts that are used for items such as,this seem to be softer and weaker than normal nuts and bolts I usually use.
Maybe to save money, I don't know.

I bolted a front hitch on my truck and used the 1/2" bolts and nuts that came with it.

When I layed into them with the torque wrench at the specified ft lbs. 2 out of the 4 sheered off.

One of them nearly blowing a hole through my radiator.

Had that of happened, I'd of found their "Listed" phone number and they'd of gotten a very "Listed" piece of my mind.


I chunked em and use my own.

JAP>
 
al hildenbrand said:
OK. Take away the bolt and nut. There is no longer a CONNECTION.
Click to expand...

You know what we mean.
The actual connection is between the mating surfaces of the two.
The bolt itself carries very little if any of the fault current in my opinion.

JAP>
 
Wow I never thought I would stir up such a conversation with that install, and especially about a nut and bolt. Like I said before it's widely excepted here. In fact it's the preferred method. Are there any inspectors here that would fail this install. I have seen way worse methods of installing an EGC that's for sure. Maybe were onto something we should start making bus bars with lugs welded on from the factory then there could be no missinterpretation

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
nickelec said:
Maybe were onto something we should start making bus bars with lugs welded on from the factory then there could be no missinterpretation

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Don't make them crimp type if you do like we use.
Crimping in place on a bussbar like that would be a real Pain.

JAP>
 
Another thing if I was to grind off the head of that bolt and round over the nut it would then be irreversible. Another thing I didn't mention here in NYC we still good of 2008 NEC I don't have my book handy wat does it say in the 2008 book about connections to buss bars. That may end this conversation dead in it's tracks lol

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Are those Romex Connectors on the bottom of those panels listed to be used with those single insulated conductors?

JAP>
 
If you tightened the ends of the romex connectors down to where each end are touching you've in a sense created a choke and you probably need to bond those also.... :p

Ok I'm done.

JAP>
 
nickelec said:
Another thing I didn't mention here in NYC we still good of 2008 NEC I don't have my book handy wat does it say in the 2008 book about connections to buss bars. That may end this conversation dead in it's tracks lol
Click to expand...

First, thanks for giving us the photo to kick around. I well remember how I was trained with respect to GEC installation, and it was a real revelation when I came to understand what listed as "grounding and bonding equipment" meant. From then on, the electrical / mechanical integrity of the conductor identified as the GEC looked, to me, as an exceptionally secure conductive path that would require extreme abuse to interfere with and that the conductor was essentially immune to common connection failures, especially, corrosion, along the conductor outside of the service disconnect enclosure until one got to the connection to the actual electrode itself.

Thanks for referring to the 2008 NEC. 250.64(D)(1) existed then, with all new/changed language. The Taps could only be spliced to the Common GEC with "exothermic welding or with connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment". The "busbar" is not in 250.64(D)(1) and 250.64(D)(1) has no subsections like the 2017 NEC version does.

In the 2008 NEC, the "busbar" rule is in 250.64(F)

So, under the 2008, I read that the "listed connector" is not allowed to connect GEC Taps to a Common GEC.
 
nickelec said:
Wow I never thought I would stir up such a conversation with that install, and especially about a nut and bolt. Like I said before it's widely excepted here. In fact it's the preferred method. Are there any inspectors here that would fail this install. I have seen way worse methods of installing an EGC that's for sure. Maybe were onto something we should start making bus bars with lugs welded on from the factory then there could be no missinterpretation

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Much ado about nothing. In my view your install looks great and is fully compliant. And yes, this is a common and recommended method, especially in larger services/buildings.
 
I do know the Romex connectors are not listed for that purpose we put them in just for looks really. Inspectors here don't really pick up on it. I guess different places you have to know what the inspectors look for and Don't Look for to an extent .using those romex connectors isn't really a danger to anybody

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
al hildenbrand said:
First, thanks for giving us the photo to kick around. I well remember how I was trained with respect to GEC installation, and it was a real revelation when I came to understand what listed as "grounding and bonding equipment" meant. From then on, the electrical / mechanical integrity of the conductor identified as the GEC looked, to me, as an exceptionally secure conductive path that would require extreme abuse to interfere with and that the conductor was essentially immune to common connection failures, especially, corrosion, along the conductor outside of the service disconnect enclosure until one got to the connection to the actual electrode itself.

Thanks for referring to the 2008 NEC. 250.64(D)(1) existed then, with all new/changed language. The Taps could only be spliced to the Common GEC with "exothermic welding or with connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment". The "busbar" is not in 250.64(D)(1) and 250.64(D)(1) has no subsections like the 2017 NEC version does.

In the 2008 NEC, the "busbar" rule is in 250.64(F)

So, under the 2008, I read that the "listed connector" is not allowed to connect GEC Taps to a Common GEC.
Click to expand...
Just to weigh in on the 2008 issue:

(D) Service with Multiple Disconnecting Means Enclosures.
Where a service consists of more than a single enclosure
as permitted in 230.71(A), grounding electrode
connections shall be made in accordance with (D)(1),
(D)(2), or (D)(3).

(1) Grounding Electrode Conductor Taps. Where the
service is installed as permitted by 230.40, Exception No.
2, a common grounding electrode conductor and grounding
electrode conductor taps shall be installed. The common
grounding electrode conductor shall be sized in accordance
with 250.66, based on the sum of the circular mil area of
the largest ungrounded service-entrance conductor(s).
Where the service-entrance conductors connect directly to a
service drop or service lateral, the common grounding electrode
conductor shall be sized in accordance with Table
250.66, Note 1. A tap conductor shall extend to the inside
of each service disconnecting means enclosure. The
grounding electrode conductor taps shall be sized in accordance
with 250.66 for the largest conductor serving the
individual enclosure. The tap conductors shall be connected to
the common grounding electrode conductor by exothermic
welding or with connectors listed as grounding and bonding
equipment in such a manner that the common grounding electrode
conductor remains without a splice or joint.
Click to expand...

Method posted by nickelec complies with that requirement because taps are connected in such manner [using...
250.8 Connection of Grounding and Bonding
Equipment.
(A) Permitted Methods. Grounding conductors and bonding
jumpers shall be connected by one of the following
means:
(1) Listed pressure connectors
(2) Terminal bars
(3) Pressure connectors listed as grounding and bonding
equipment
(4) Exothermic welding process
(5) Machine screw-type fasteners that engage not less than
two threads or are secured with a nut
(6) Thread-forming machine screws that engage not less
than two threads in the enclosure
(7) Connections that are part of a listed assembly
(8) Other listed means
Click to expand...

...] that the common grounding electrode conductor remains without a splice or joint.
 
Smart $ said:
Just to weigh in on the 2008 issue:



Method posted by nickelec complies with that requirement because taps are connected in such manner [using...


...] that the common grounding electrode conductor remains without a splice or joint.
Click to expand...
... ty smart there goes those two threads I mentioned earlier

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Smart $ said:
Just to weigh in on the 2008 issue:
Method posted by nickelec complies with that requirement because taps are connected in such manner [using...

...] that the common grounding electrode conductor remains without a splice or joint.
Click to expand...

I find it fascinating that you are glossing over the "listed as grounding and bonding equipment". Only some of each of the means listed in 250.8(A) (1) through (8) are listed as "grounding and bonding equipment."
 
al hildenbrand said:
I find it fascinating that you are glossing over the "listed as grounding and bonding equipment". Only some of each of the means listed in 250.8(A) (1) through (8) are listed as "grounding and bonding equipment."
Click to expand...
It is conventionally accepted that the listed means are 'permitted' to employ items enumerated in 250.8 to 'complete' the connection. Fight it all you want, but I know of no AHJ that is going to reject such as long as the assembly is both mechanically and electrically solid.
 
Smart $ said:
It is conventionally accepted that the listed means are 'permitted' to employ items enumerated in 250.8 to 'complete' the connection. Fight it all you want, but I know of no AHJ that is going to reject such as long as the assembly is both mechanically and electrically solid.
Click to expand...
Your opinion of the AHJs that you know has no meaning when compared to the enforceable written text of the NEC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top