Someone not a electrician changed a meter box and used spilt bolts because Power Co wires were to short coming from pad mount transformer . Inspector wanted spit bolts changed and a neater job in meter. So I used Polaris connectors because wires were real short coming out of conduit. Well inspector said I should of used irreversible crimps, I thought of that there wasn't wire to get crimp in. Well he passed me and I thankful for that because otherwise I would had cut conduit and lower meter box. So I walk back to transformer pad and PO guy hook up power and connector is about the same as mine but it has more terminals. When service is overhead I always use irreversible crimps. What some different way you guys handle something like this?
Irreversible crimp
- Thread starter guschash
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
There is no code requirement for irreversible connections, except when splicing a grounding electrode conductor.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
What you did was code complaint. Ask the inspector where in the NEC it says that you need irreversible connectors.
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
- Occupation
- Electrician
Not necessarily irreversible, but isn't there a new requirement for connectors on the line side of the service disconnect to be listed for the use? Or is that just for terminal blocks?
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- Semi-retired engineer
might be a poco requirement
cadpoint
Senior Member
- Location
- Durham, NC
- Occupation
- Electrician - but not by NC Law.
Exactly, it's a spec'd item for irreversible crimped or flashed weld (cadweld) for field transformers and remote power distribution pads.
mostly on the buried ground ring and rods tied back together to equipment.. The Government and Military services spec it...
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- Semi-retired engineer
What exactly is the point of this new requirement?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
There is no OCPD that limits the fult current, and the concern is the conductors pulling out of the connection under fault current conditions.
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
- Occupation
- Electrician
Sounds plausible, but Has there been documented issues with this?
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- Semi-retired engineer
So why not require a terminal rated for whatever the short circuit current is? What standard is there going to be for these kind of terminals? They're not going to be able to take full short circuit current for any length of time no matter what you do to them. If something doesn't open the circuit, eventually the short circuit current is going to cause them to fail.
How are you going to prevent the conductors from pulling out of the terminals on the meter base itself?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
No idea, I did not write the proposal to require this and am too lazy to look up the substantiations.
If you have interest, you can find that information at nfpa.org/70 in the archived revision information section of the code year the change was made.
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- Semi-retired engineer
My guess is the real reason is someone wants to sell expensive service rated parts, but the substantiations won't say that.
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
- Occupation
- Electrician
But you can see who the submitter was and if they are affiliated with a company that sells such things. I would be curious.
Can we please alter the NFPA charter so that manufacturers reps are limited to less than 25% of the representation on a CMP? This is insane. If the connector won’t withstand a short circuit it should not be Listed, period. Is this to charge more money for specially marked connectors or less for cheap junk? This reminds me of type 1 vs type 2 starters where Listed starters are acceptable as long as they drop out before they melt into a puddle.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
Even if there are a few documented cases of problems my guess is that they're the result of poor installation and not a physical limitation of the connector. This type of connector is notoriously under-tightened by installers without a torque wrench. I had one yesterday on a feeder that I loosened with a screwdriver instead of the 3/8" hex wrench.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
The maximum number of panel members from any one interest group is not set by the NFPA. Since the NEC is an ANSI standard, that number comes from ANSI and applies to all ANSI consensus standards. The rule limits the number of panel members from any one interest group to 1/3 of the total panel membership, and requires a minimum of 2/3s of the panel membership to vote in favor to pass a change.
As far as the starters, I don't believe NEMA rated starters have types 1 and 2. I think that is only for IEC rated starters.
For years Erico has tried to convince spec writers that the word “continuous” in the grounding requirements means a continuous (welded) cable. No mechanicals, no crimps, not TiG, just Cadweld. We have the stuff but calls are pretty rare for it.
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
- Occupation
- Electrician
I am guessing there is no history of problems. Just having a bolted fault in service cond uctirs has got to be extremely rare in the first place. I just don't understand how this "it seems like a good idea" stuff keeps getting put in the code .
- Status