ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 96 guests, and 10 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 3
Cat Servant
Member
Scott, I understand your position...the box is bonded, and conducts, so there's the electrical continuity you need....and why should we ask more of this connection than we ask of every coupling in the conduit? I will also admit that I am completely unaware of any bad things happening as a result of using the mounting screws as your bond.

Here is where I find the requirement....you are required to have a bond sufficient for anticipated overcurrents, so as to clear a fault (as the code explains). With a ground bar, you need a bond ing connection able to carry everything that bar can- and with multiple circuits, I question the capacity of the screw connections. The code constantly refers us to table 250.66- and the smallest wire listed is #8 copper. Finally, in 250.92(B) the code discusses "bonding at the service."

250.92(B) lista any number of permitted methods of bonding, but using the monting screws isn't one of them. The closest suggested way is #4, which suggests 'bushings with bonding jumpers.'


Another point that has influenced my thinking was demonstrated when I wired an audio recording studio. There I learned that even properly made-up pipe produces some radio static from tiny amounts of arcing at every connection. To reduce this electronic noise, ground wires were run to isolated devices. (The conduit then acted as a "shield" for the ground wires). In using such a jumper, I am trying to reduce the current that will flow through the mounting connections.

Is it overkill? Probably. Does Code require such a jumper? I think so. Has anyone ever been cited? I doubt it.

And, as to the "Panel or sub-panel" issue, I am only speaking of bonding one ground bar to the original ground bar. The connection to the "neutral" system hasn't been changed at all.

Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,294
Member
Everyone seems to take it for granted that this a service.
The original question referred only to a 200 Amp Panel.
Here's a pic of a Cutler Hammer ground bar, properly installed in a 200 amp panel with no jumper.

[Linked Image]

I've got no objection to putting a jumper on of course, but I wouldn't have any objection to putting grounding bushings on every conduit in the building, either, as long as someone else was doing it. [Linked Image]

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 681
P
Member
It is funny how some topics really can get peoples "dander" up [Linked Image]

If the enclosure for a service or a subpanel does not have the threaded holes for a "KIT" that can be mounted via the installation instructions, than the bus/bar that is mounted by an installer without these provisions has not been tested as effective, and will require bonding to the original bus in the enclosure.

250.130(A), 250.24(B) and the UL Directory that also has specific language on this topic.

I know that we all know this is the most important connection that we make everyday - the effective ground fault current path!!!


Pierre Belarge
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5