Is it legal or feasible to use a conduit body to transition from electrical metallic tubing (EMT) to type SOOW power cord with a fitting that joins these two raceways instead of installing a box?
Above hung ceiling will be EMT, Below will be the Pwr Coord. The conduit will be used to splice 3#6AWG & 1#10AWG wire.
Thanks in advance.
IF you could locate a condulet that was identified for containing splices, and of sufficient size (CI) for the conductors....no problem.
Please keep in mind the sparky that will have to do this, IF you locate a compliant condulet.
How do I locate a compliant conduit body?
That's not going to be easy.
There are condulets that are identified/listed as suitable for splicing, and those should be marked with CI capacity or quantity & size of conductors.
RedDot may be a mfg to start with, or a good counter guy at a real supply house.
Personally, I would go with a suitable box.
The code reference you are dealing with is Article 314 Section 314.16(C).
A little further on this.
(C) Conduit Bodies.
(1) General. Conduit bodies enclosing 6 AWG conductors
or smaller, other than short-radius conduit bodies as described
in 314.16(C)(2), shall have a cross-sectional area
not less than twice the cross-sectional area of the largest
conduit or tubing to which they can be attached. The maximum
number of conductors permitted shall be the maximum
number permitted by Table 1 of Chapter 9 for the
conduit or tubing to which it is attached.
(2) With Splices, Taps, or Devices. Only those conduit
bodies that are durably and legibly marked by the manufacturer
with their volume shall be permitted to contain
splices, taps, or devices. The maximum number of conductors
shall be calculated in accordance with 314.16(B). Conduit
bodies shall be supported in a rigid and secure manner
314.16 (b) table requires 5 CI for each #6, & 2.5 CIfor the #10
Sounds like 38.5CI .
Using Red Dot mfg data, you will need a 2" LB/LL/LR for your conductors.
or......?
sparky:
I really had a thought about the above, but I wanted to stay serious.
Just how far is it from your last box?
I see no problem with using a simple connector/coupling/cord grip assembly on the end of the pipe, with the cord running in the pipe all the way back to the box- thus not needing a splice at the transition.
"Cord in a raceway" would raise an eyebrow in a lot of places.
It is not a chapter 3 wiring method.
OK, so you strip the outer jacket off the portion inside the pipe- no different than removing the jacket from MC.
I'm not sure you can object to even the complete cord in the pipe, with the strain relief connector where it exits the pipe. There's the 'termination' fitting some speak of when the 'romex in pipe' discussion comes up.
It may be time to read Article 400.7 & 400.8., before we all get to deep into this.
400.7 (B) may come into play. (2011)
Perhaps the OP could add a little more info?
Greg has a point on raised eyebrows.
I get to 400.8 (not permitted)
"(6) Where installed in raceways, except as otherwise permitted in this Code"
... and I am trying to find out where it is permitted.
Physical damage? 400.14?
BTW Reno, there are plenty of inspectors who would write a 110.3(B) for loose conductors from a cable or cord in a raceway.
"What kind of wire is that? It doesn't say on the insulation"
Greg:
I was alluding to the part about 'connected with a cord cap'. The OP mentions 'splices'.
I agree on the 'what kind of wire', re: the insulation of the internal conductors not being identified. A lot of guys look at that.
It seems like a lot of confusion, just to avoid using a box.
I agree with Greg, use a box, it's cheaper, easier to mount and makes more sense than arguing with the AHJ. Since I am an AHJ, I'm probably going to give you a what for when I see a LB instead of a box.
I did say in post 4 that I would use a box, but the OP was going down a different road.
All this worry about "arguing with the AHJ!"
The opposition seems based upon a religious belief that flexible cords ought not be inside pipe, and that there can be no tolerance of such heresy.
No one seems to recognize that this whole issue is the direct result of the NEC making a 'design decision' to ban flexible cords from above dropped ceilings.
So, why did we ban cords penetrating drop ceilings? I seem to recall a few folks arguing at the time that the soft cardboard tiles would damage the cords. Then there was that whole fire/smoke issue.
So, what's a 'drop ceiling?' It's a framework filled with rather insubstantial tiles. By definition, there's quite a distance between the ceiling and any structure- if for no reason than that one must be able to remove the tiles.
Why is this relevant? Because boxes must be supported- and we've had recent code changes that preclude supporting anything from the grid, even though there are some very nice brackets marketed for that exact use.
Plus, a box anywhere near the tiles will interfere with the removal of the tiles.
So, what's someone to do? Well, it's no trick to have a length of pipe to be 'cantilevered' from it's last support. Let that pipe pierce a tile, and you have a nice, clean penetration. All that remains is the transition to the cord.
So, I'd look to 400.14 as providing me with a loophole big enough to drive a circus train through. To wit: "In industrial establishments where the conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation, flexible cords and cables shall be permitted to be installed in aboveground raceways that are no longer than 50-ft. to protect the flexible cord or cable from physical damage."
Since the NEC does not define any of the qualifying conditions in that section, the AHJ has no choice but to grant the greatest possible lattitude to 'industrial,' 'qualified,' 'supervision,' 'ensure,' and 'protection.'
Therefore, the NEC specifically allows that you run the cable through a fitting into pipe, and to continue the cable to the junction box.
How far to the junction box? Well -apart from the 50-ft. limitation- the pipe is required to be supported within 5ft
(not a typo) of the structural support, I'd say that the junction box would be required at that support point.
sparky:
I really had a thought about the above, but I wanted to stay serious.
well i was tryin to be HotOne, i mean the mogul deal is usually par for the LB course.....
~S~
what say you to Buss Drop Cable Greg?
~S~
Reno:
Agree to disagree one more time. The following is IMHO
Protection from physical damage is the reasoning for the article you quoted.
'Industrial', although not within Art 100 defs, means just that, industrial.
Qualified persons, although not within Art 100 would be people like you, me and 'sparky'! Or a plant maintenance electrician.
'ensure' is not in Art 100 either, but that could be what an AHJ is doing by enforcing the code.
That all said...rubber cord in conduit will not fly. Protection from physical damage? Why is 'cord' installed IF it as subject to physical damage? Use an Article 300 wiring method suitable for the enviornment!
No loophole, no circus train, even "N" guage.
~s~:
A mogul LB would really be a $$$ clincher!
So, I'd look to 400.14 as providing me with a loophole big enough to drive a circus train through. To wit: "In industrial establishments where the conditions of maintenance and supervision ensure that only qualified persons service the installation, flexible cords and cables shall be permitted to be installed in aboveground raceways that are no longer than 50-ft. to protect the flexible cord or cable from physical damage."
Since the NEC does not define any of the qualifying conditions in that section, the AHJ has no choice but to grant the greatest possible lattitude to 'industrial,' 'qualified,' 'supervision,' 'ensure,' and 'protection.'
Therefore, the NEC specifically allows that you run the cable through a fitting into pipe, and to continue the cable to the junction box.
How far to the junction box? Well -apart from the 50-ft. limitation- the pipe is required to be supported within 5ft
(not a typo) of the structural support, I'd say that the junction box would be required at that support point.
dang, this is like the bibical contra's those nuns drove me batsh*t with in my youth GO RENO! ~S~
~s~:
A mogul LB would really be a $$$ clincher!
forkin' A right they are HotOne! ~S~
Okay we all know what @#...%% stuff means, even the young people that visit the forum . please use proper words in your replies. I will have to search the forum when this was mentioned a few years ago.
Thanks Guys
what say you to Buss Drop Cable Greg?
~S~
It is a fine wiring method when used as intended, branching off of a busway, with proper support. Pretty expensive tho.
Sparky, be careful what you wish for!
Doug .... how can you object to words -like the one in your example- that are so tame every kid can see them in the Sunday comics? Surely what's allowed for Beetle Bailey is safe enough for here?
Now I will set aside my spoon, as the pot is stirred quite enough.
On a more serious note ... Hotline, I won't disagree. We need to select the method to suit the environment. The issue the OP is facing is that the environment changes, so he must change method to match. The only question is whether he can do it without a splice placed exactly at the point where the environment changes.
If I can summarize it, your position is that there must be a change in method at that exact point; mine is that the OP has five feet of leeway.
Sparky, be careful what you wish for!
Doug .... how can you object to words -like the one in your example- that are so tame every kid can see them in the Sunday comics? Surely what's allowed for Beetle Bailey is safe enough for here?
Now I will set aside my spoon, as the pot is stirred quite enough.
Okay, This type of word usage has been discussed here before
batsh*t
gee i wonder what fits in there. Pick a vowel
anyhow just trying to keep certain words out
Reno:
The point of change from one wiring method to another is 'design'; my involvement is NEC compliance as adopted by my stste.
Dbravo posted a question in this thread. He was given answers, and opinions.
It will be interesting if he posts his solution.
Sparky, be careful what you wish for!
Doug .... how can you object to words -like the one in your example- that are so tame every kid can see them in the Sunday comics? Surely what's allowed for Beetle Bailey is safe enough for here?
Now I will set aside my spoon, as the pot is stirred quite enough.
Okay, This type of word usage has been discussed here before
batsh*t
gee i wonder what fits in there. Pick a vowel
anyhow just trying to keep certain words out
no offensive was intended Doug
~S~
I did read it more as asking for an opinion. I am sure we have all seen lamp holders in conduit bodies. (usually at a restaurant, not in your patch) You know there are 3 splices in there.
Somebody didn't care.
In the case of the OP's question my first concern is how are you supporting the cord grip? Can you drill a hole in a conduit body and screw it to structure? Cite that.
I did read it more as asking for an opinion. I am sure we have all seen lamp holders in conduit bodies. (usually at a restaurant, not in your patch) You know there are 3 splices in there.
Somebody didn't care.
In the case of the OP's question my first concern is how are you supporting the cord grip? Can you drill a hole in a conduit body and screw it to structure? Cite that.
probably the best example i can think of are fan downrods