Contactors, Disconnects - Ring Lug Terminals

Have a customer that has specked all motor starters and disconnects must accept ring lug terminals. The motors are only 7.5hp, 480vac, 3phase. Everything I find has mechanical lugs integrated into the starter or disconnect at this hp rating. Hate to have to put in 200amp disconnects or grossly over sized starters.
Anybody know any MFG's that make a small disconnect and starter that will accept ring lugs.

Thanks

If you think that is unnecessary in this instance, ask for a written exception?

Waiting for a response from them weather or not they'll do an exception
But the guy I spoke to said they won't budge.

MATT116 said:

Have a customer that has specked all motor starters and disconnects must accept ring lug terminals. The motors are only 7.5hp, 480vac, 3phase. Everything I find has mechanical lugs integrated into the starter or disconnect at this hp rating. Hate to have to put in 200amp disconnects or grossly over sized starters.
Anybody know any MFG's that make a small disconnect and starter that will accept ring lugs.

Thanks

Click to expand...

This is a very common spec for semiconductor equipment manufacturers, it comes from an industry safety document called "SEMI S2". Most of the major electrical equipment manufacturers will have SEMI S2 compliant options available if you ask. If you are searching on internet resellers, eBay and cheap junk purveyors, they will not offer them because they don't cater to that industry.

Anticipating your next question... "Why?"
OFFICIALLY they say it is because of a specification, born in Japan, that was originally intended to prevent conductors from coming loose inside of control panels due to the constant earthquake activity they experience. I kid you not...

UNOFFICIALLY, it is payback for UL and IEC regulations I think. When that spec was first released way back when, NOBODY had contactors and circuit breakers any more that could accept ring tongue terminals until you got to very large sizes. In the case of NEMA mfrs, its basically because we don't reall care about small wires that much. In the case of IEC / DIN standards, there were requirements for finger safety, not being able to touch terminals, that precluded the ability to remove the terminal screws, which does not allow for ring terminals at all. But lo and behold, FUJI, a Japanese contactor and relay mfr., and Terasaki, a Japanese breaker manufacturer, BOTH had ring tongue capable small contactors and breakers, ready the day that specification went into effect! What a coincidence!

With a Google search for " contactors ring lugs" I get ABB in France, and definite purpose contactors.
I would argue for an exception or update. IEC contactors have replaced definite purpose. One definite purpose is Square D class 8502. I think they're obsolete.
I worked with one semiconductor manufacturer in California on a portion of the first draft of S2-93. At that time, they were concerned about wires coming loose if they weren't tightened correctly. Ring lugs instead of spade. The spades with upturned ends were an exception. These were the days of screw terminal blocks.
I think a later document was S2-98, but never saw a copy. I expect they updated to IEC standards.
I would get a copy of UL508A, and tell your customer you build to these standards. S2-93 is over 20 years old.

keithkyll said:

With a Google search for " contactors ring lugs" I get ABB in France, and definite purpose contactors.
I would argue for an exception or update. IEC contactors have replaced definite purpose. One definite purpose is Square D class 8502. I think they're obsolete.
I worked with one semiconductor manufacturer in California on a portion of the first draft of S2-93. At that time, they were concerned about wires coming loose if they weren't tightened correctly. Ring lugs instead of spade. The spades with upturned ends were an exception. These were the days of screw terminal blocks.
I think a later document was S2-98, but never saw a copy. I expect they updated to IEC standards.
I would get a copy of UL508A, and tell your customer you build to these standards. S2-93 is over 20 years old.

Click to expand...

If his customer is in any way connected, even remotely, to Applied Materials, it will not matter, they will not deviate nor allow deviation. For better or worse, it is what it is.

If they're a PITA on something as trivial as this, imagine what they will ask for next. Time to fire the customer?


-rpoet

rpoet said:

If they're a PITA on something as trivial as this, imagine what they will ask for next. Time to fire the customer?


-rpoet

Click to expand...

It's a roller coaster ride. At one point in my career, AMAT accounted for around 65% of my income one year, followed by 20% the next, climbing back to 60% a few years later. At my current employer they are still our largest single customer.

You can't fix stupid.

I have often dealt with engineers and specifiers that insist on something that has no value, or even causes problems, for the end user or owner. My experience is the less competent they are, the less likely they are to deviate from a spec when they don't understand the basis of the requirement. They are even less likely to ask for or take advice from someone that knows better.

You can try going over their head - other than that you, the customer, and your employer may simply be screwed.

Eaton's Freedom Series has mention of a model code suffix (T16) for ring tongue terminals on the power connections. I have never checked the price of availability of these.

What about providing a terminal strip for connecting the motor that is capable of ring tongue connections and so they are connecting with a ring tongue like they want. sounds stupid but might work for them...

<disclaimer- I work for an Eaton distributor>