|
1 members (Scott35),
515
guests, and
15
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
OP
Member
|
came across this ground bar in a otherwise normal & clean looking panel... I didn't make a huge issue of it to the owner of the store, but I did note it in the contract..... Randy
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 162
Member
|
Are those sheetmetal screws w/washers??
looks a little shakey 250.8 maybe 110.3 (B)??
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 1,158
Member
|
those screws are called Wafer teks they are all in in , I would use them mounting boxes to steel studding.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 840
Member
|
Looks like a GE ground bar in a Cutler Hammer panel. Not quite compatible.
Peter
Peter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 41
Member
|
I don't believe this installation is code compliant. Sheet metal screws are not permitted to connect grounding conductors to enclosures. 250.8........... In this case, tek (self tapping) screws.
Kenny Wilee
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
Member
|
Is it me, or does that bar look like it was cut in half for some reason?
If so both are a no-go.
Mark Heller "Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 127
Member
|
Is it me, or does that bar look like it was cut in half for some reason? Hmmm... split busses are BAD NEWS any way you look at them!!!!!!! I just could not resist...!
No wire bias here- I'm standing on neutral ground.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 943 Likes: 2
Member
|
IMO, GE has the worst ground bars around, that split is "normal" for them.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 681
Member
|
This poses an interesting situation for inspectors. Do we violate the installation for not using the proper listed equipment for the enclosure, or do we say at least they separated the equipment grounds from the neutral so I am satisfied? This is a very typical installation I see almost everyday. This is clearly a violation of 110.3(B), but...
I will say this; I have seen large faults where the connection of the fittings and the screws were scortched - obviously not a good sign for the fault current path.
Pierre
Pierre Belarge
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
Member
|
110.3(B) is the first thing that came to mind with me when I saw this also... The thing I mostly was concerned about was that the panel can is being used as the bonding means (No separate EGC coming in with the feeders via EMT). If it comes down to clearing a fault on the 60A 240V A/C circuit which is connected in this panel, will the buttonheads or wafer teks be reliable in doing so?
Could this technically fall under 250.8?
-Randy
-Randy
|
|
|
Posts: 2,749
Joined: October 2000
|
|
|
|
|