IPC 240.36

[jaggedben]

Is a lug on equipment a pressure connector? Or is a 'connector' only used to connect wires?

 

[jaggedben]

... I bet many people's answer would change on whether it was existing and just covering a 230.40 exception #2 install, versus something that was being installed for say a PV system.

I hope not, considering that we're talking about article 230 and not 705.

(Reminder that the subject line is a typo, the requirement is in 230.46.)

 

[SparkyBirdman]

Thanks for the info Don. Ill put aside going on a rant about the NEC requiring yet more stuff with no substantiation of a problem, and a ridiculous overly broad reasoning of "things being on service conductors needing some special treatment because there is the possibility of high AFC, but also the possibility that the AFC is not that high and in fact many non service conductors could easily have higher AFC than other service conductors, but just for the heck of it we should require something because we need more bloat, just like the box fill change allowance of 1/4 conductor for each one over 4." So avoiding that rant and just sticking to the issue of the NEC forcing product standards, isnt there a way these two organizations could communicate, coordinate, and plan like adults and not leave use electricians stuck with a legal requirement with no product available?

I second that emotion

 

[SparkyBirdman]

Okay also, do we have a definition of what a splice and a tap is in the context of this section? Seems like they need to rigorously define this as well. Are service conductors "spliced" at a CT cabinet or a bussed gutter? If I used a bussed gutter to split up a set of service conductors, have I made a splice or a tap? I bet many people's answer would change on whether it was existing and just covering a 230.40 exception #2 install, versus something that was being installed for say a PV system.

I believe you look at it from the standpoint of how you are making a splice or tap. Typically a splice is joining 2 or more wires together, i.e. 3#12s under a wire nut or (2)250s on a 2 port polaris. A tap would be adding a new conductor to another solid conductor WITHOUT cutting, i.e. piercing the insulation of the main conductor while clamping down on the new conductor. A bussed gutter would have lugs for each wire so then it should be considered a termination, just like landing a single conductor to the lug of a breaker. Typically, in my experience, we have always had to cut the supply, term it into a 3 port polaris and add the solar feed. That would be a splice to me. If I didnt cut the feed, but used a set of piercing connectors, then Ive always called that a “tap”

 

[SSDriver]

Standards, Conformity Assessment and Trade provides comprehensive analysis .
Users are not supposed to wait two code cycles (your analysis) for something to be considered a standard.

When science discovers a revolutionary idea that will change the way we do things—scientists don’t just shove that idea down our throat and say:

Here use this gizmo and it will make lives of electricians’ lives a lot easier.

Before they decide to roll-out a new product for the general public—rigorous tests and re-tests would have to be conducted.
Failure to do so, and they would run the risk of unfavorable outcome.

You just described AFCIs and how they came to be code

 

[electrofelon]

I believe you look at it from the standpoint of how you are making a splice or tap. Typically a splice is joining 2 or more wires together, i.e. 3#12s under a wire nut or (2)250s on a 2 port polaris. A tap would be adding a new conductor to another solid conductor WITHOUT cutting, i.e. piercing the insulation of the main conductor while clamping down on the new conductor. A bussed gutter would have lugs for each wire so then it should be considered a termination, just like landing a single conductor to the lug of a breaker. Typically, in my experience, we have always had to cut the supply, term it into a 3 port polaris and add the solar feed. That would be a splice to me. If I didnt cut the feed, but used a set of piercing connectors, then Ive always called that a “tap”

Seems reasonable and generally how I would think about it, but this is not defined in the code and I believe it needs to be

 

[ggunn]

A tap would be adding a new conductor to another solid conductor WITHOUT cutting, i.e. piercing the insulation of the main conductor while clamping down on the new conductor.

Not necessarily. Breaking service conductors and splicing them with PV AC conductors using Polaris bocks is also done. For example, when there are multiple sets of service conductors we cannot tap into one set of them with IPC connectors; we must terminate the parallel set at the point of interconnection.

 

[SparkyBirdman]

Not necessarily. Breaking service conductors and splicing them with PV AC conductors using Polaris bocks is also done. For example, when there are multiple sets of service conductors we cannot tap into one set of them with IPC connectors; we must terminate the parallel set at the point of interconnection.

And I agree with that and would consider that a ‘splice’ as I am still cutting the parallel feeds and splicing all of the individual conductors together-just like if I were to cut a #12 home run in a jbox and ‘splice’ on another device. I would consider it a tap if you left the parallel feeds terminated and then used a piercing tap for the solar wires to each parallel. It could be semantics and I could be wrong, but that’s how its been explained to me and it makes sense in regards to the process.

 

[electrofelon]

And I agree with that and would consider that a ‘splice’ as I am still cutting the parallel feeds and splicing all of the individual conductors together-just like if I were to cut a #12 home run in a jbox and ‘splice’ on another device. I would consider it a tap if you left the parallel feeds terminated and then used a piercing tap for the solar wires to each parallel. It could be semantics and I could be wrong, but that’s how its been explained to me and it makes sense in regards to the process.

Bottom line is if the NEC is making requirements on splices and taps, they need to define what they are.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Bottom line is if the NEC is making requirements on splices and taps, they need to define what they are.

The system is open to submit PIs for the 2026 code now

 

[SparkyBirdman]

Bottom line is if the NEC is making requirements on splices and taps, they need to define what they are.

I agree with you. Its been my experience that when the code is more vague than BnW, the whole “open to interpretation” that inspectors like to use gets my blood boiling faster than anything. Ive heard the argument that the Code intentionally leaves things loose to allow some wriggle room on installation. Problem is, when there are industry norms or accepted terms tradesmen use not specifically called out or defined, inspectors can use this for citations or other electricians/contractors can use this as a cop-out for less than safe installs. I like the definition chapter in the NEC because then I know what Im talking about, I fully understand what Im reading and I can convey totally clear directions to others because we all share the same terms and language.

 

[ggunn]

And I agree with that and would consider that a ‘splice’ as I am still cutting the parallel feeds and splicing all of the individual conductors together-just like if I were to cut a #12 home run in a jbox and ‘splice’ on another device. I would consider it a tap if you left the parallel feeds terminated and then used a piercing tap for the solar wires to each parallel. It could be semantics and I could be wrong, but that’s how its been explained to me and it makes sense in regards to the process.

I don't see any electrical difference between splicing PV AC conductors onto a single set of service conductors using Polaris blocks and making a supply side connection with IPC connectors.

 

[SparkyBirdman]

I don't see any electrical difference between splicing PV AC conductors onto a single set of service conductors using Polaris blocks and making a supply side connection with IPC connectors.

There is no electrical difference, but a terminology difference is what Im saying. When we say “terminate a wire”, we usually mean land to a mech lug or set screw on a breaker. A splice is joining wires together under a wire nut or polaris. Tapping is more the process of adding another conductor directly to a “mains” conductor without cutting or separating that conductor to add the new one.

You’re accomplishing the same goal, just a different way in doing it, hence a different term. Itd be like wiring an array on a house: I can wire a DC system with all mods in series back to the inverter; or on a ACmicro system you wire the mods in parallel to a set of home runs to a breaker. Each system has a set of home runs for each string, but we use different terms depending on how its wired and the means we wire it up.

 

[SparkyBirdman]

I don't see any electrical difference between splicing PV AC conductors onto a single set of service conductors using Polaris blocks and making a supply side connection with IPC connectors.

Maybe its more “you say tomatO, I say tOmato”

 

[ggunn]

There is no electrical difference, but a terminology difference is what Im saying. When we say “terminate a wire”, we usually mean land to a mech lug or set screw on a breaker. A splice is joining wires together under a wire nut or polaris. Tapping is more the process of adding another conductor directly to a “mains” conductor without cutting or separating that conductor to add the new one.

I don't think there is any difference from the NEC point of view. The tap rules do not apply in either case; they are for feeders.

 

[ggunn]

I don't think there is any difference from the NEC point of view. The tap rules do not apply in either case; they are for feeders.

Also, if you splice onto a feeder it is a tap irrespective of the connection method.

 

[electrofelon]

Also, if you splice onto a feeder it is a tap irrespective of the connection method.

Wouldn't that only be if the ampacity of the tap conductor was lower than that of the ocpd?

 

[ggunn]

Wouldn't that only be if the ampacity of the tap conductor was lower than that of the ocpd?

No. The tap rules are in 240.21(B); I haven't seen any language in there that says that.

 

[electrofelon]

No. The tap rules are in 240.21(B); I haven't seen any language in there that says that.

See the definition of "tap conductor" in the beginning of article 240

 

[ggunn]

See the definition of "tap conductor" in the beginning of article 240

Ah, yes I see it. Thanks for pointing that out.