|
0 members (),
21
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
Member
|
Bob, I just don't see any applications listed that don't involve the use of a locknut. I would expect that UL only tests to the manufacturer's intended installation methods and that the method described here is not one of those methods. Lacking a statement from either UL or the manufacturer that this is an intended use of chase nipples, I would redtag this installation if I was the AHJ. Don
Don(resqcapt19)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
Moderator
|
Don I would redtag this installation if I was the AHJ. What code article would you cite? To each their own, I would fight it. Good talking with you. Bob
Bob Badger Construction & Maintenance Electrician Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 206
Member
|
Why not use a rigid metal nipple with locknuts & bushing instead of the coupling?
Al
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
Member
|
Bob, What code article would you cite? 250.4(A)(3). Don
Don(resqcapt19)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 518
Member
|
You know, circumstances have dictated that I try this sort of connection a few times. I've hhad instances where the sheetmetal was so thin, or the receiving female threads were so shallow, that it was not possible to tighten the chase nipple enough to clamp down on the enclosure. (In those cases, I instead used 'running thread.')
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 394
Member
|
I usually go with a chase into an LB. I think it is much more sanitary inside the box than a nipple, locknut, and bushing. When I tighten the assembly up, it is mechanically very solid and the chase is in solid contact with the edge of the usually hole sawed hole.
|
|
|
Posts: 46
Joined: March 2013
|
|
|
|
|