Help ASAP Splitting Wire for 2 Terminals

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
You kidding or serious? :confused:

110.3(B)
Click to expand...

To be honest it's one of things that seems obvious and I wouldn't consider doing it. However to use 110.3(B) wouldn't the manufacutre have to specifically say 100% of the conductor connected to the terminal must be used... or something along those lines.

I'm not try to be argumentative but I personally have been in this situation before where one of my techs split an 8AWG to two terminals of a terminal strip. It's up to me to PROVE it violates the installation listing.

Alright let's say there is a weird situation where someone brings a stranded wire into a receptacle outlet box and splits the conductor to to two receptacles. How do you prove the installation isn't "installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling." for the receptacle?

It may seem common sense but proof is required.
 
Forget about the terminals listing and think of the conductors listing.:smile:

The conductor specs will specify the number and size of the strands that make any specific conductor size. :cool:
 
Twoskinsoneman said:
I'm not try to be argumentative but I personally have been in this situation before where one of my techs split an 8AWG to two terminals of a terminal strip. It's up to me to PROVE it violates the installation listing.
Click to expand...
Technical reason: since all stranded conductors have an odd number of strands, there's no way to make an exact 50-50 split.
 
LarryFine said:
Technical reason: since all stranded conductors have an odd number of strands, there's no way to make an exact 50-50 split.
Click to expand...
To support Bob's "where's the rule it has to be a 50-50 split", as long as all strands are terminated, you have not reduced the cmil size of the conductor. Amperage should divide among the strands by the ratio of strands landed per terminal to all strands.
 
Twoskinsoneman said:
To be honest it's one of things that seems obvious and I wouldn't consider doing it. However to use 110.3(B) wouldn't the manufacutre have to specifically say 100% of the conductor connected to the terminal must be used... or something along those lines.

I'm not try to be argumentative but I personally have been in this situation before where one of my techs split an 8AWG to two terminals of a terminal strip. It's up to me to PROVE it violates the installation listing.

Alright let's say there is a weird situation where someone brings a stranded wire into a receptacle outlet box and splits the conductor to to two receptacles. How do you prove the installation isn't "installed and used in accordance with any instructions included in the listing or labeling." for the receptacle?

It may seem common sense but proof is required.
Click to expand...

How about this....UL 486 is what the manufacturers of terminal lugs meet.

Here is an except from UL on what UL 486 covers.....

1.2 This Standard is intended for connectors suitable for use with conductors in the size ranges as follows:

a) Aluminum

1) 12 AWG (3.3 mm2) and 10 AWG (5.3 mm2) solid; and

2) 12 AWG (3.3 mm2) to 2 000 kcmil (1 010 mm2) stranded, Class B concentric, compressed, and unidirectional lay compact.


b) Copper

1) 30 AWG (0.05 mm2) to 10 AWG (5.3 mm2) solid; and

2) 30 AWG (0.05 mm2) to 2 000 kcmil (1 010 mm2) stranded, Class B concentric and compressed, and Class C concentric.


c) Compact-stranded copper conductors

1) in Canada for 8 AWG (8.4 mm 2) and larger;

2) in the United States for 2 AWG (33.6 mm2) and larger; and

3) in Mexico for 8 AWG (8.4 mm2) and larger.

Whenever you Make your own cable, in this case, by unraveling the concentric or compacted stranding of the conductor, and reassembling them in to Who Knows what stranding configuration (certainly not concentric or compacted in accordance with cable manufacturers specifications), you now have a conductor that is not listed to go into the listed lug.

110.3(B) applies, since both the cable and lug are listed/labled, and not installed per requirements, which is to install the whole conductor as provided by the manufactuere into the lug.
 
markstg said:
How about this....UL 486 is what the manufacturers of terminal lugs meet.

...
Click to expand...
What you posted is the UL 486a-486b scope for Wiring Connectors.

How about this... UL 486E...

UL Standard for Safety for Equipment Wiring Terminals for Use with Aluminum and/or Copper Conductors,
UL 486E

Scope
These requirements apply to pressure type equipment wiring terminals intended for use with appliances or equipment with either copper, aluminum, or copper-clad aluminum wire in accordance with the National Electrical Code, NFPA 70. The terminals may be constructed so that they are also acceptable for use with any wire.

These requirements apply to field wired equipment wiring terminals which are an integral part of the equipment, or are intended for use in specific equipment.

These requirements cover ampere-rated equipment wiring terminals, horsepower rated terminals and wire range rated terminals, intended for use in appliances and equipment and that comply with the requirements for such appliances and equipment.

These requirements cover terminal-type wire connectors intended for use with No. 12 AWG (3.3 mm2) or larger aluminum or copper-clad aluminum wire, and for No. 30 AWG (0.05 mm2) or larger copper wire. Current ratings are based on the ampacity of insulated conductors rated 75?C or 90?C in accordance with the connector rating and not exceeding the maximum current rating - if provided - of the wiring terminal. For equipment wiring terminals intended for use with stranded conductors, the following conductor strand configurations are intended:

Aluminum - Class B concentric, compressed, and unidirectional lay compact.
Copper - Class B concentric and compressed, Class C concentric.
Copper-Clad Aluminum - Class B concentric.
Other class and strand configurations may also be covered as indicated by marking.
These requirements also cover connectors additionally rated for No. 2 AWG (33.6 mm2) and larger compact-stranded copper conductors. These connectors are identified in accordance with . See also and the Exception to (b)(3).

These requirements also cover connectors of the types specified in intended for use with metric conductors that have cross sectional area within the range of the rated AWG/kcmil conductors. For example, a connector rated for 6 AWG - 250 kcmil may additionally be rated for 16 - 120 mm2. See , , , and .

These requirements do not cover insulated connectors, binding-screw terminals, built-in terminal connectors on devices rated under 30 amperes and intended for outlet-box mounting or having provision for strain relief, or built-in terminal connectors on devices having integral cable clamps.

A product that contains features, characteristics, components, materials, or systems new or different from those covered by the requirements in this standard, and that involves a risk of fire or of electric shock or injury to persons shall be evaluated using appropriate additional component and end-product requirements to maintain the level of safety as originally anticipated by the intent of this standard. A product whose features, characteristics, components, materials, or systems conflict with specific requirements or provisions of this standard does not comply with this standard. Revision of requirements shall be proposed and adopted in conformance with the methods employed for development, revision, and implementation of this standard.
UL 486E does not reference any other UL Standards.​
Click to expand...

Please note I highlighted every use of the terms "requirements" and "intended".

Simply put, intended is not equivalent to required. A civil suit's defense attorney would have a field day with the use of these terms and the clause containing "any wire" ;)

What the standard essentially says, is the requirements of the standard must be met when using the specified wire types. It does not say, the use of other-than-specified wire types invalidate the listing.
 
Since the code does not specifically say, a stranded single conductor cannot be unraveled and split into to two conductors and landed into 2 lugs....and UL says there is a way UL list conductors terminating into lugs, but other ways may be ok....

Then whether this is acceptable or not is up to the AHJ, and their interpretations as defined in NEC 80.13.

I wonder if the original post got the electricity turned on.
 
markstg said:
Since the code does not specifically say, a stranded single conductor cannot be unraveled and split into to two conductors and landed into 2 lugs....and UL says there is a way UL list conductors terminating into lugs, but other ways may be ok....

Then whether this is acceptable or not is up to the AHJ, and their interpretations as defined in NEC 80.13.

I wonder if the original post got the electricity turned on.
Click to expand...

This is what is come down to. Every balks at it pretty quickly (including myself) but if you use charlies rule I'm not convinced there is a solid case against it.

I personally try to keep an open mind. To be honest if I was inspecting it I would probably allow it (even though I wouldn't like) unless any part of it looked dangerous/poor workmanship and I felt that the connection were secure etc.

I am BOUND and determined to shed my own prejudices as I learn more and more.

In my humble opinion, iwire 110.3(B) is pretty weak...

Of course you always have ol' trusty 90.4 :roll:
 
markstg said:
Since the code does not specifically say, a stranded single conductor cannot be unraveled and split into to two conductors and landed into 2 lugs...
Click to expand...

Typically, the NEC is regarded as a permissive code. In other words, if it does not specifically say you cannot do it, then it is permissible. The words "shall be permitted" or "Shall be permissible" are used for excepted conditions.

Putting code and such aside for a minute, can you tell me/us how using a splice block to make one large conductor into two smaller conductors any better than separating strands of the large conductor and inserting them in the smaller-holed combination lug. Seems to me, to use the splice block, you may decrease the circuit reliability and/or longevity by adding three more terminations to the circuit.

Then we can analyze the lug itself. Many mechanical lugs, which I believe is the type initiating this branch of the thread, are listed for use with conductors over a range of sizes. Using the smallest permitted doesn't exactly have a snug fit in the hole, does it? The connection relies on the pressure applied by the binder screw. In order to achive that pressure it has to deform the circular shape of the strands, now doesn't it? How many times have you unlanded large conductors from a mechanical lug and see a perfectly round arrangement of the strands? Am I making a point yet, or am I just bumping into a wall?

markstg said:
and UL says there is a way UL list conductors terminating into lugs, but other ways may be ok....
Click to expand...

Point and counterpoint without me saying a word :grin:

markstg said:
Then whether this is acceptable or not is up to the AHJ, and their interpretations as defined in NEC 80.13.
Click to expand...

NEC 80.13?

Granted, to the gist of your statement... but that don't make it necessarily right or wrong, because if the code is so vague that it has to be interpretted, then it's a matter of opinion and not fact.

markstg said:
I wonder if the original post got the electricity turned on.
Click to expand...
My guess is yes, but what he had to do to get it turned on is what I think everyone, including myself, is interested in ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top