The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Sprinklered equipment 26-008
by bigpapa
Yesterday at 04:24 PM
On Delay Relay with Auto Reset
by Potseal
12/01/16 09:59 AM
Wow, that was close!
by jraef
11/28/16 07:06 PM
Earthquake in New Zeeland
by RODALCO
11/27/16 11:25 PM
Calling all Non-US members!! (Non-US only)
by Tjia1981
11/27/16 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 15
HotLine1 10
Trumpy 8
Texas_Ranger 8
sparkyinak 7
Who's Online
1 registered (gfretwell), 218 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#77261 - 05/17/01 04:43 PM 370-23 (e) exception, (f) exception
frodo Offline
Member

Registered: 05/16/01
Posts: 129
Loc: louisville, ky usa
i hate to be a forum hog but i have a question that has come up and a few various qualified opinions on the subject would help solve the question.

here is the situation...

given a 3/4 inch run of rigid steel conduit with a 2" tee cut in. re's are used to bush the tee down to 3/4. the only support is a piece of unistrut a foot apart on either side of the tee for this example.. the rest of the run is supported correctly.

the issue is the support of the fitting...i see a code violation here because you would be using a 3/4 inch conduit to support the 2 inch tee...

given that the fitting should contain devices or fixtures you are bound by the same exception as in 370-23 (e)

i realize this has been done for a long time but.....i beleive it was changed in 1996 to eliminate this problem...

thank you for your response

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#77262 - 05/17/01 06:38 PM Re: 370-23 (e) exception, (f) exception
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5545
frodo;
there may be some consideration as to defining this as a 'conduit body' or 'enclosure'.


Top
#77263 - 05/18/01 02:46 PM Re: 370-23 (e) exception, (f) exception
sparky Offline
Member

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 5545
frodo;
maybe others can comment here, at one time an LB could be either definition. this depended on a termination within it or not. The fill calc ( seen on interior of LB's) were only to be applied to those used for terminations .

Or else we would all be using mogul LB's
(very $$$$$)


Top
#77264 - 05/18/01 03:47 PM Re: 370-23 (e) exception, (f) exception
resqcapt19 Offline
Member

Registered: 11/10/00
Posts: 2209
Loc: IL
This gets a little tricky. 370-23(c) says two conduits screwed into threaded hubs are permitted to support enclosures 100 cubic inches or less without devices or fixtures in the enclosure. The exception tells us that conduit of the same trade size as the conduit body can support the conduit body even if the volume exceeds 100 cu. in.
It is now my opinion that is the volume of the 2" T is less than 100 cu. in. then the 3/4 conduits are permitted to support it.
Don(resqcapt19)
_________________________
Don(resqcapt19)

Top



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals