Large gauge taps

Status
Not open for further replies.

johnfluevogs

Member
Location
NEW YORK STATE
Occupation
Engineer
I am tapping into a main disconnect (see picture) to feed a subpanel. The current plan is to use Polaris taps (IPLD250-3) for the two phases.

Can I use a non-insulated parallel tap (GP-250)?

I am seeking advice on tapping options that would efficiently fit in the existing enclosure.

Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • 20230825_161259.jpg
    20230825_161259.jpg
    1.4 MB · Views: 38

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
Are you under the 2020 NEC? If so, is the AHJ enforcing 230.46?
 

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
I was having a good day until I was reminded of that little gem😡😡 😡
When NEC 230.46 first went into effect last January I was doing some research for the solar company I was working for, so I called Ilsco to ask them about it (they make insulation piercing connectors). I got routed to their chief engineer who bent my ear with a prolonged tirade about UL's dragging their feet in designing a testing routine for their listing of IPCs for compliance with 230.46. He told me that his company had submitted samples for testing at least a year before the January 2023 deadline.
 
When NEC 230.46 first went into effect last January I was doing some research for the solar company I was working for, so I called Ilsco to ask them about it (they make insulation piercing connectors). I got routed to their chief engineer who bent my ear with a prolonged tirade about UL's dragging their feet in designing a testing routine for their listing of IPCs for compliance with 230.46. He told me that his company had submitted samples for testing at least a year before the January 2023 deadline.
🤬
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
When NEC 230.46 first went into effect last January I was doing some research for the solar company I was working for, so I called Ilsco to ask them about it (they make insulation piercing connectors). I got routed to their chief engineer who bent my ear with a prolonged tirade about UL's dragging their feet in designing a testing routine for their listing of IPCs for compliance with 230.46. He told me that his company had submitted samples for testing at least a year before the January 2023 deadline.
The testing requirements are found in the product standards and changing a product standard is a long drawn out process much like changing the NEC. They are both governed by the ANSI standard process and compliance takes time.
One of the issues is that the product standard writing organizations, like UL and others, often won't even start on writing a new standard or revising an existing one until there is some code requirement that would require a new or revised standard. When the NEC does this, it needs to use a future date much further into the future that the typical 3 years.
 

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
The testing requirements are found in the product standards and changing a product standard is a long drawn out process much like changing the NEC. They are both governed by the ANSI standard process and compliance takes time.
One of the issues is that the product standard writing organizations, like UL and others, often won't even start on writing a new standard or revising an existing one until there is some code requirement that would require a new or revised standard. When the NEC does this, it needs to use a future date much further into the future that the typical 3 years.
Whomever is at fault this is proving to be a real PITA for solar companies in places where AHJs do not invoke NEC 90.4 to delay enforcement of 230.46 until compliant products are available.
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Whomever is at fault this is proving to be a real PITA for solar companies in places where AHJs do not invoke NEC 90.4 to delay enforcement of 230.46 until compliant products are available.
Maybe 90.4(D) should be changed from "may permit" to "shall permit".
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Exactly (I mean second of course to just not even making the new requirement in the first place which had no justification as far as I know)
This originally only applied to power distribution blocks and was put into Article 376 in the 2014 code. Based on the substantiation for this change that was rejected in the first draft, but was added in the second draft, the requirement was based on the UL Guide Information for Power Distribution Blocks.
from proposal 8-140 for 376.56(B)(1))
(1) Installation. Power distribution blocks installed in metal wireways shall be listed. Power distribution blocks shall not be installed on the line side of the service equipment.
Substantiation: The UL white book guide information QPQS for power distribution blocks states that PDBs are to be used only on the load side of
service equipment. Installers should have, but usually have never seen the UL guide information equipment book. It is a fairly common occurrence to see power distribution block used in wireways feeding multiple service disconnects. By placing this new language in the body of the Code, hopefully this will alert installers to the restrictions and use of these devices.
The panel statement in rejecting this was to say that the installers need to read and comply with the listing and labeling instructions, but there have been a number of cases where the code has added rules to force compliance with the listing and labeling instructions. Two that come to mine are the torque requirement in 110.14 and only one neutral per termination in 408.41.

The panel changed course in the second draft and added the listing requirement for power distribution blocks on the line side of the service disconnect.
(from comment 8-43)
(1) Installation. Power distribution blocks installed in metal wireways shall be listed. Power distribution blocks installed on the line side of the service
equipment shall be listed for the purpose.

Panel Statement: CMP-8 recognizes that power distribution blocks may be suitable for line side of the installation if listed for the purpose.

Of course that requirement really should not have been placed into Article 476.
The first draft of the 2020 added a new section, 230.11 to address the power distribution blocks and other types of splices.
230.11 Splices and Taps.
Splices and taps shall be permitted. Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps shall be listed. Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps, installed on service conductors, shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent.
The PI for this change only addressed the fact that the rule belongs in Article 230 and not in 476.
230.34 Power Distribution Blocks
Power distribution blocks installed on the line side of the service equipment shall be listed and marked “suitable for use on the line side of service equipment” or equivalent.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
This requirement is currently contained in Article 314 Boxes and 376 Metal Wireways, but it really belongs in Article 230.
The code making panel acted on this PI by creating new section 230.11 and expanding it to all types of line side splices.
230.11 Splices and Taps.
Splices and taps shall be permitted. Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps shall be listed. Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps, installed on service conductors, shall be marked “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent.
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name:NEC-CMP Panel 10
Committee:
Submittal Date:Tue Jan 16 21:09:00 EST 2018
Committee Statement
Committee Statement:This revision is necessary to correlate with other code requirements for power distribution blocks. All devices used to splice service conductors must be listed and marked as “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” or equivalent.
A public comment moved the requirement to 230.46.
230.46 Spliced and Tapped Conductors.
Service-entrance conductors shall be permitted to be spliced or tapped in accordance with 110.14, 300.5(E), 300.13, and 300.15. Power distribution blocks, pressure connectors, and devices for splices and taps shall be listed. Power distribution blocks installed on service conductors shall be marked "suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment" or equivalent.

Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Comment
This Public Comment would relocate verbiage added in a new Section 230.11 (FR 8454) to this existing Section. This Public Comment would also make changes to the requirements in FR 8454, as described below: This First Revision went beyond relocating “Service Requirements” for power distribution blocks and pressure connectors to also requiring both types of devices be rated “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment”. In the case of power distribution blocks, this designation is based on the application of a Short Circuit Current Rating without the benefit of an upstream overcurrent protective device. This is consistent with 2017 Code language in 314.28(E)(1) and 376.56(B)(1), and consistent with the listing of Power Distribution Blocks, which may be evaluated and marked as being “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment”. Wire connectors are not, by themselves, listed as being “suitable for use on the line side of the service disconnect”, although a connector may be part of a listed assembly (such as a panelboard) that is rated for “service equipment”. A connector that isn’t part of equipment, such as an insulated splicing wire connector, is used to join conductors of the same polarity or phase. The connectors are insulated to provide dielectric protection for the voltage rating of the connector from short circuiting to another uninsulated conductor or grounded metal. The connectors are not permanently affixed to the enclosure. Instead, they are floating free inside the enclosure, supported by the wires connected to them. As such, these connectors move with any force they may be subjected to, including those experienced under a short circuit condition, so that a conductor is not likely to pull out of the connector. Power distribution blocks are intended to be permanently fixed within an enclosure and may be used to terminate conductors of opposite polarity or phase and ground (similar to a wire connector that is an integral part of a panelboard). They utilize terminals that rely on through air and over surface spacings to maintain the proper distances between conductors based on the voltage rating of the power distribution block. These spacings are intended to prevent arcing and short circuiting between connectors of different voltage potentials. Because power distribution blocks are not free floating in the enclosure, they must have the ability to withstand opposing forces so that conductors do not pull out of the terminals and potentially short circuit to each other or to ground during a short-circuit condition. Power distribution blocks marked as “suitable for use on the line side of the service equipment” are evaluated without an overcurrent protective device and are subjected to the short circuit current for a duration of no less than three electrical cycles.{/quote]
There was never any technical substantiation to add the other types of connections to the rule, and the Public Comment substantiation suggests there is no need to have added them.
 

winnie

Senior Member
Location
Springfield, MA, USA
Occupation
Electric motor research
*sarcasm* I wonder if wire should also be listed for use on the line side of a service disconnect.

Seriously: I could imagine issues with ability to withstand the mechanical forces involved in a short circuit event. But this is an issue anywhere that fault current is high, not just ahead of the service.

Jon
 
*sarcasm* I wonder if wire should also be listed for use on the line side of a service disconnect.

Seriously: I could imagine issues with ability to withstand the mechanical forces involved in a short circuit event. But this is an issue anywhere that fault current is high, not just ahead of the service.

Jon
That is perhaps my biggest issue with this. You could have line side with a AFC of 10k on one service, and another where it's 60k on the load side. The requirement seem very arbitrary. I get that clearing time may be a part of it, where a line side fault might sit for a while before something on the POCO side gives......but still
 

johnfluevogs

Member
Location
NEW YORK STATE
Occupation
Engineer
Insulation-piercing taps are relatively small, self-insulated, and easy to install.
I did consider insulation piercing taps; however, thought they may be a little large for the application. Thanks!
Most people thing split bolts are passe, but I usually use them in a situation like that where there isn't much room.
I didn't realize I would save that much space using a split bolt over a "modern" Polaris style connector. I was under the impression the "joint" would be a similar size after you apply the insulating tape.

Are you under the 2020 NEC? If so, is the AHJ enforcing 230.46?
I avoid headaches, I will have to check with the AHJ before providing with any connector ;)
 

letgomywago

Senior Member
Location
Washington state and Oregon coast
Occupation
residential electrician
I did consider insulation piercing taps; however, thought they may be a little large for the application. Thanks!

I didn't realize I would save that much space using a split bolt over a "modern" Polaris style connector. I was under the impression the "joint" would be a similar size after you apply the insulating tape.


I avoid headaches, I will have to check with the AHJ before providing with any connector ;)
polaris are about a 1/4 bigger it seams like. you also need to have a 3 port vs 2 port instead of stripping it a few inches back from the breaker.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top