You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Sub panel installed. How does it look?
- Thread starter poorboy87
- Start date
pattenp
Well-known member
It's a listing requirement of the panel to having only one grounded conductor (neutral) per terminal. To carry more than one conductor the terminal has to be identified as such.
Thanks guys!
The grounds and nuetrals were wired that way when I bought the house.
Why do they need to be separate if they are on the same bar? Connection issue?
One day if Im feeling froggy Ill separate them.
JohnX14
Well-known member
Thanks guys!
The grounds and nuetrals were wired that way when I bought the house.
Why do they need to be separate if they are on the same bar? Connection issue?
One day if Im feeling froggy Ill separate them.
It's a listing requirement of the panel to having only one grounded conductor (neutral) per terminal. To carry more than one conductor the terminal has to be identified as such.
Recent changes (2008 NEC, iirc) prohibit more than one neutral (grounded conductor) under one terminal. Prior to this NEC change it was based on manufacturer instructions/ listing. It was likely perfectly acceptable when this panel was installed. And perfectly safe IMO.
pattenp
Well-known member
The NEC 2014 110.14(A) just says terminals for more than one conductor shall be so identified.
Edit: The code still leaves it to the equipment listing. 2014 NEC 110.3(B)
Edit Edit: There is code that limits grounded conductor to one per terminal. 408.41. I was thinking it was only limited by the panel listing because you never see listings allowing more than one grounded conductor per terminal. Live and learn.
Edit: The code still leaves it to the equipment listing. 2014 NEC 110.3(B)
Edit Edit: There is code that limits grounded conductor to one per terminal. 408.41. I was thinking it was only limited by the panel listing because you never see listings allowing more than one grounded conductor per terminal. Live and learn.
Recent changes (2008 NEC, iirc) prohibit more than one neutral (grounded conductor) under one terminal. Prior to this NEC change it was based on manufacturer instructions/ listing. It was likely perfectly acceptable when this panel was installed. And perfectly safe IMO.
Last edited:
sberry
Banned
I did a service call a while back where the termination had loosened, ground and N under same screw. This is not good for a couple reasons but the N is a current carry conductor and subject to thermal. It does cause problems and multiple grounds are not a problem but even though they are on the same bar a separate termination insuring a fault return is a good thing.
JohnX14
Well-known member
The NEC 2014 110.14(A) just says terminals for more than one conductor shall be so identified.
Edit: The code still leaves it to the equipment listing. 2014 NEC 110.3(B)
Edit Edit: There is code that limits grounded conductor to one per terminal. 408.41. I was thinking it was only limited by the panel listing because you never see listings allowing more than one grounded conductor per terminal. Live and learn.
I guess time flies. (I thought the change was in 2008 - it was actually 2002) This article 408.41 was originally introduced as 408.21 in the 2002 NEC. Prior to 2002, "Switchboards and Panelboards" were located in article 384. The current text of 408.41 which was formerly located in 408.21 did not appear at all in article 384 of the 1999 NEC. The only provisions in 1999 and previous editions were what you cited that is located in article 110.
JohnX14
Well-known member
The only real problem with terminating 2 grounded conductors under one terminal is if one has to work on one of the circuits and needs to keep the other circuit energized. (This is why the CMP added the article in 2002 from all of my info) If listed and properly terminated, there will not be a problem with 2 of the same sized grounded terminals under one screw. The problems that are often described were almost always associated with over or under torqueing the connection.