incorrect conductor termination?

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

xguard

Senior Member
Location
Baton Rouge, LA
Took these photos yesterday. The lugs are rated for this size conductor but the way the conductors are doubled back on themselves looked questionable.

Could this cause any problems? Is this allowed or disallowed by a UL, NECA, or other document?

Thank you
 

Attachments

  • 20170815_132347.jpg
    20170815_132347.jpg
    79.4 KB · Views: 4
  • 20170815_132404.jpg
    20170815_132404.jpg
    119.7 KB · Views: 3
I've never seen a terminal that allows the conductors to be folded over. Still if properly tightened it might last forever problem is that you just don't know.
 
The lugs should be rated for the size of wire used.

To me, the fact that the wire was doubled back is a big indication those lugs were not rated for that size wire, but there is no way to know for sure from a photo.
 
many lugs have a wide range, #14 in big bore seems odd, but if you use a gazillion of them all the time, one big box seems plausible. folding wire over provides more surface area. if the lug is torq'd to spec what issue would there be?

as example:
"2S2" 2 AWG double wire lug, 2-14 AWG wire range, double barrel, aluminum or copper wire, CU9AL, 90C temperature rating, single 5/16" (8mm) dia. bolt mounting hole, UL Listed at 600v - acceptable for use through 2000v, CSA Certified. Made in the USA.

2S2.jpg
 
are the lugs rated for parallel connections? I'm sure the sparky was trying to get more meat in the lug but technically he has a connection as having 2 conductors under the lug. & ditto for lug conductor min rating.
 
mwm1752 said:
but technically he has a connection as having 2 conductors under the lug.
Click to expand...

how do you see two conductors? i technically see many conductors, but only one "wire".

however, a fold could make the wire bigger, but if the fold of a smaller wire can still fit into the bore then its very likley still not exceeding max wire size.
"Suitable for 18-12 AWG" and i fold 18 that is still less than 12.

also hard to see from that 2nd pick, but it appears that the insulation has not been peeled back enough, really should not be entering the bore.
 
Last edited:
If the lug is not listed for the size of conductor you are using, this would not be debatable because it would be a violation of 110.3. Folding the stripped conductors so they pass through twice does not change that basic fact.

If the lug IS listed for that size conductor, then folding it back is a violation if that lug is not rated for TWO of that size conductors. How the strands compress and/or spread out in the lug is a critical design element, you can't make up your own work-around in the field, which is why it's rare to see this type of lug rated for two conductors per terminal. The way the setscrew compresses the conductor strands in this design is typically based on a single conductor; the type that accept two per hole have a different shape to the hole and/or a ridged plate to clamp to the conductors, not just the setscrew itself.

Use the right device for the task. Period.
 
OP said lug was rated for wire size used.
Also if you look at the second picture it is very obvious that the lug is made for two conductors.

And using fuse reducers too.
Check those for a UL stamp, some of them don't have it.
 
Last edited:
i dont see two conductors, i only see one. so this is a one conductor question, has nothing to do with two conductors.

folding #18 is the same as one #12, so what exactly is your logic for "has to be rated for two conductors"?

one 18 folded is one (1) wire, and forms a diameter of strands no bigger than #12. if the lug is rated one conductor 18-12 then the issue is what exactly?

surely a solid conductor will present an odd shape with two dia side by side, but this is stranded wire.

and yes, the lug has specs, i thought we got past that from post #1 onward?


from the pics posted, other than the insulation and assuming the lug is within use specs, i dont see anything wrong with it.
 
FionaZuppa said:
folding #18 is the same as one #12
Click to expand...
Unless the AWG wiring specification, folding #18 is the same as #15. I'm not addressing code, just mathematics.

While the NEC may not see this as I do, the stranding count wouldn't concern me; this looks like 7 strand conductor, and 19 strand would ALMOST certainly be included in the listing.
 
of course there is one conductor but folding it occupies the same space as if 2 conductors were side by side under the same termination. Left side knife looks a bit twisted
 
qcroanoke said:
OP said lug was rated for wire size used.
Also if you look at the second picture it is very obvious that the lug is made for two conductors.

And using fuse reducers too.
Check those for a UL stamp, some of them don't have it.
Click to expand...
I noticed that as well, probably a 400 amp device with lugs designed to accept parallel conductors. May need to look close at the instructions to see if it can take two small conductors or if there is a minimum on small size when there is two conductors.

I also agree that there is a single conductor installed, but folding it over effectively makes the connection no different then if two of the same size conductor were used.
 
xguard said:
I've attached the terminal information from the switch. I hope it's legible.
Click to expand...

It is legible, but you never told us the actual size of the wire shown. If it is #2 or larger, it would appear to be OK, but given the doubling of the wire, I would say that the two wire spec could be considered to apply, making the minimum size #1/0 instead.
The label is easy to read, but not necessarily easy to interpret.
 
GeorgeB said:
Unless the AWG wiring specification, folding #18 is the same as #15. I'm not addressing code, just mathematics.

While the NEC may not see this as I do, the stranding count wouldn't concern me; this looks like 7 strand conductor, and 19 strand would ALMOST certainly be included in the listing.
Click to expand...

TY for this point.

you are counting strands? i was looking at awg diameters.

but good pint on stranding as i do see lots of limitations especially when you get to fine stranded wire.
 
GoldDigger said:
It is legible, but you never told us the actual size of the wire shown. If it is #2 or larger, it would appear to be OK, but given the doubling of the wire, I would say that the two wire spec could be considered to apply, making the minimum size #1/0 instead.
The label is easy to read, but not necessarily easy to interpret.
Click to expand...

They are 1/0
 
kwired said:
Since the termination info says it accepts 2 - 1/0, there kind of isn't a problem then.
Click to expand...

Does it accept just one, and is looping it around like the pics show ok?

I've a feeling the original installer had a question about it as well and decided looping the wire was the best option under the circumstances.
 
JFletcher said:
Does it accept just one, and is looping it around like the pics show ok?

I've a feeling the original installer had a question about it as well and decided looping the wire was the best option under the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Lug data in post 13 says a single conductor as small as #2 can land in that lug.

Lug also accepts 2 - 1/0-250 conductors

It isn't all that clear if one could put in a 1/0 and a 3/0 - kind of follows the rating.

if parallel conductors though they would need to be the same for other reasons. But one could possibly be supplying feeder taps of different sizes from such a lug.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top