Residential crimp-on ground sleeves

Status
Not open for further replies.
Someone needs to include some more pictures I'm lost again,
I've seen the Brazing work lets see some good crimp'n ...
I've seen the Pigtail Caps, I just don't get it, sounds like shrimp;
crimp your fingers, Crimp on Toes, Crimp nails, crimp a Skin ...:rolleyes:



Edit for Spelling
 
Last edited:
georgestolz said:
Sounds like anarchy. Why bother buying a codebook if they make up their own rules?
Click to expand...


Kind of the reason I asked in the first place.:roll:


Here's the Buchanan sleeve:

IDELINC00011_6_TE_101.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have spoken with both Ideal and UL about the listing of wirenuts and crimps for grounding purposes.

The Ideal tech was very informative and must have been asked the question before or is well schooled.
It was stated that the catalog that has their wirenuts and crimp (pictures and in color) only shows standard wirenuts with phase conductors and the only time you will see the equipment ground conductor in their catalog is with green wirenuts. Even the crimps are shown with power conductors. It also shows the UL standard with each, and you will not see the grounding standard shown with wirenuts or the crimps.


UL has a statement of explanation of why the standard wirenuts and crimps are not listed for grounding purposes. I do not believe it has anything to do with the actual performance of the wirenuts or the crimp itself. To paraphrase them (excuse me if I am off a little): The reason the standard wirenuts and crimps are not listed is because they have not been tested for grounding purposes. I think they are not tested for grounding purposes, as UL wants to see the green wirenut as the "strongest link" in the grounding path, and the wirenuts as considered to be the "weakest link". At least on paper. This way if there is a failure in the grounding path, the failure (by design-on paper) will occur in the phase conductor (nonlisted wirenut) and not in the equipment ground path... this would theoretically deenergize the circuit leaving no power on the circuit past the point of failure on that circuit...as opposed to the equipment ground path failing and then power would be on the equipment ground path up til the failure there.


I hope that makes sense.
 
Residential crimp on ground sleeves

Residential crimp on ground sleeves

infinity said:
Kind of the reason I asked in the first place.:roll:


Here's the Buchanan sleeve:

IDELINC00011_6_TE_101.jpg
Click to expand...
Looks like a good crimp to me. When crimping bear copper wires after I crimp I twist the wires for even a better connection. When I connect grounds that have insulation I usually do it with wire nuts. When using wire nuts I also twist until the wire wraps around a couple of times. Then when you take off the wire nut the wires stay connected. Semper Fi
 
Thank You ... I've never run into to those, I've lived a sheltered life of new construction.
 
This has been quite an interesting thread. Thanks to Pierre, Don, and the others for the good info. Before now, I just figured it was the NEC's way of preventing the twisted ground wires to stay twisted together. The fact that only greenies is listed for ground connections is quite new for me. Please don't tell any of the inspectors for my state, cause greenies are more expensive by far than crimps. You can pick up more by coming to Mike Holts code forum than you get from any ten electrical books.:smile:
 
For whoever it was that asked, here is a T+B listed tool for sta-kons. I use it also for the making the loops at the conductor ends for device installs and it has that cutter on the end also. It is pretty simple stuff.
4uy1u29.jpg
[/IMG]
 
So the green wirenut is the only listed connector for grounding? I learned something new today.

That said, it seems kinda ridiculous that they have not tested regular wirenuts for EGC's. How and I going to slice 2 #8's and a #10 in the bottom of a pole base? With a green wirenut? :rolleyes:
 
Note that CMP5's action on proposal 5-84 for the 2008 code resulted in the following language for section 250.8.
250.8 Connection of Grounding and Bonding Equipment[ROP 5–84].
(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 [ROP 5–84]
Click to expand...
They clearly intend to permit both standard wire nuts (pressure connectors) and green ones in the EGC path.
Don
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Note that CMP5's action on proposal 5-84 for the 2008 code resulted in the following language for section 250.8.

They clearly intend to permit both standard wire nuts (pressure connectors) and green ones in the EGC path.
Don
Click to expand...


Remember that part of the fault current path is through the phase conductors...
 
hmm..

hmm..

Do you guys pigtail EGC's for switches? How is that accomplished neatly in a multi-gang box (PVC) with a greenie?

I had a local inspector tell me that a standard crimper like shown with those T&B ferrules was not sufficient and a four-point crimper was required like what was used to terminate the wires in the other image of terminated ferrules. Thats when I quit using them (Buchannon's "Splice Caps") altogether, and went back to reds.

This is a toughie. If reds are OK to use on current carrying conductors, and fault current occurs intially from a current carrying conductor, than why again are reds not listed to carry fault current in EGC's?

Sorry about the bruised up dead horse..
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Remember that part of the fault current path is through the phase conductors...
Click to expand...

All the fault current is through the ungrounded phase conductor.

As little as 0% to as much as 100% of the fault current will be on the EGC.
 
sparkydon said:
Do you guys pigtail EGC's for switches? How is that accomplished neatly in a multi-gang box (PVC) with a greenie?
Click to expand...

Usually one long ground wire is made up which goes through the greenie, and this loops to each switch.

Sometimes the installer will pigtail each device, but you can quickly exceed the limit of the greenie that way. I think they're only rated for 5 #14.

All in all, the greenie is pretty useless and I prefer a regular wirenut. Although a lot of the construction guys are using wago's now for splicing.
 
Loook out the window gentleman. Pigs are flying! I just bought me some crimp sleves and I think I might even use them.
 
I am not the designer of the wirenut situation we are talking about, just the purveyor of some info that I got when at the last Eastern Section Meeting of the IAEI while at the UL info portion of the meeting.

As Bob has pointed out, the flow of current during a fault can be problematic as to how it may flow.

What UL and others involved in the design/testing of fault current paths is how they Perceive the safety aspect of the path should be.

By not listing/testing the regular wirenuts as suitable (this does not mean they are not suitable), they are in essence saying that they want the failure (if there is a failure in that path) of a fault current path to be in the phase/energized path so as to at least deenergize the fault path up to the point of the phase conductors, hopefully not reaching any of the metallic paths available for fault current to flow on.
 
Oh yeah, those come in some Halo Products. I don,t know if I trust one to carry 10 amps. Time will tell. I do use them at dead end fixtures. The others I cut off and use wire nuts.(after I twist the wires)
 
Pierre,
By not listing/testing the regular wirenuts as suitable (this does not mean they are not suitable),
Click to expand...
They really are telling us that you must use only the green wirenuts for the grounding path because of their stance on following all of the products listing, labeling and instruction information. It is UL's written position that except in the case of classified breakers, compliance with all of the above is required by 110.3(B). As most of you know I do not agree with that position and now we have CMP5 also not agreeing with the UL position on following all of the written product information.
Does 250.8 override 110.3(B)???
UL should stick to product testing and not be trying to rewrite the NEC.
Don
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top