ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
Top Posters(30 Days)
Potseal 11
Recent Posts
600 KW 120/208 3 Phase Y protection
by Yooperup. 07/24/17 12:20 PM
1913 American Electrician's Handbook
by gfretwell. 07/20/17 01:08 PM
Green House wiring
by ghost307. 07/20/17 09:10 AM
Permit Snafus...AHJs and Contractors Jump in
by HotLine1. 07/18/17 08:06 PM
New in the Gallery:
SE cable question
Popular Topics(Views)
239,316 Are you busy
174,784 Re: Forum
167,153 Need opinion
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 69 guests, and 8 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
#83675 - 02/13/03 01:22 PM Size of terminal limitations  
Joe Tedesco  Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Boston, Massachusetts USA
If a 750 kcmil compact stranded conductor was terminated into a terminal that limits the size to 500 kcmil copper, for example, would that be acceptable?

I say NO because of rules in 110.14 and 110.3(B)


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant

2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides

#83676 - 02/13/03 02:28 PM Re: Size of terminal limitations  
Len_B  Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 53
New Hampshire
Joe,

I agree with two possible exceptions:

1) The terminals were supplied with or factory installed in a "listed" device or piece of equipment.

2) I think it could be "approved" by the ahj if the circuit ampacity were limited to a value allowable for 500kcmil, and the lugs provided enough room to deform(squash) the conductors enough to ensure good mechanical contact. A definite judgement call.

Len


#83677 - 02/13/03 07:47 PM Re: Size of terminal limitations  
HotLine1  Offline


Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,853
Brick, NJ USA
Joe:
I have to agree with your decission.
If the lug is marked "500 KCMil, then that is the maximum size wire that the lug is rated for.

John


John

#83678 - 02/13/03 07:51 PM Re: Size of terminal limitations  
jes  Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 103
CT
There are usually other considerations with Listed equipment other than just the terminal capacity...but related to it. Bending radius is evaluated on the basis of the largest size conductors the terminals are expected to accept. The withstand testing of the equipment is usually performed with the largest conductors. Etc.

Evaluation of the terminal performance under load does not presuppose incorrect size conductors nor does the torque spec and the engineering of the lug strength. So, NO!


#83679 - 02/13/03 07:52 PM Re: Size of terminal limitations  
frenchelectrican  Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 939
Wi/ Paris France { France for ...
bonsoir joe :

i do agree with you but i see few places what they use the short adpater stub ( change from aluimin 750 to 500 cu ) due wire length and the 750 is allready derated to match the 500 on the device and there is no way i can put 750 cable in the 500lug c'est coco !! very simauar with europen rules too ps i have french licisene too so i am famiur with usa and french elctrcal rules

merci marc


Pas de problme,il marche n'est-ce pas?"(No problem, it works doesn't it?)


#83680 - 02/16/03 03:47 PM Re: Size of terminal limitations  
Bjarney  Offline
Moderator
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,527
West-Southern Inner-Northeast ...
To side with HL1 and frenchelectrican, it’s apparent that there may be a size-restriction misapplication on the termination, but also there may be a conductor-material limitation—id est, 750-Al versus 500-Cu. Is the substitute larger cable aluminum?

Of course the termination would have to be so intended, unless [given Code termination dimensions] something like a Burndy AYPO adapter could be used. {T&B and Penn-Union have similar products.}


#83681 - 02/16/03 04:04 PM Re: Size of terminal limitations  
ga.sparky56  Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 558
young harris georgia usa
110.3(b) "listing or labeling" seems to pretty well narrow it down to me.

[This message has been edited by ga.sparky56 (edited 02-16-2003).]

[This message has been edited by ga.sparky56 (edited 02-16-2003).]


#83682 - 02/17/03 02:30 AM Re: Size of terminal limitations  
frenchelectrican  Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 939
Wi/ Paris France { France for ...
bjarney you have very valid point for copper vs. alumuimane wire . yes you did point out clear who is the manufacter make that stub adpater . for long run most place use aluminane wire for cost reason but all ready increased the wire size by going at least one size or two bigger then derate what i say on the earlier forms

ga sparky56 : thanks for pointing that nec and i read it ( i tranlanasted from french to engish to get it right )

merci marc


Pas de problme,il marche n'est-ce pas?"(No problem, it works doesn't it?)


#83683 - 02/17/03 09:33 AM Re: Size of terminal limitations  
Gwz  Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 197
What about the current of an AC circuit being on the circumference of the conductor?

You cut the circumference strands off of the conductor and you've lost the current - No?


#83684 - 02/18/03 05:29 PM Re: Size of terminal limitations  
HotLine1  Offline


Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,853
Brick, NJ USA
If you cut the circumference strands off of the conductor...you win a red sticker.

Yes there are adaptors made to "fit" larger wire into "factory" lugs...and the AHJ should find them acceptable if the conductor size was increased to voltage drop, ar a different material (Cu to Al). Bending radius has to be considered also. Usually, the job plans reflect VD calcs, and if a larger conductor is required, the PE/EE specs larger lugs.
John


John


Member Spotlight
BEAMEUP
BEAMEUP
WA
Posts: 27
Joined: December 2004
Show All Member Profiles 
Featured:

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

Shout Box
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.023s Queries: 14 (0.004s) Memory: 0.8102 MB (Peak: 0.9876 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-07-25 04:45:57 UTC