ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Al Hildenbrand - Minneapolis - obituary
by bcpappas - 02/02/23 08:01 PM
Violation?
by renosteinke - 01/27/23 09:52 PM
Does NEC 551.71 (F) apply to dwellings?
by BigB - 01/20/23 10:46 AM
Power submeter connections
by HotLine1 - 01/19/23 09:09 AM
New in the Gallery:
Burger King crown sillyness
Burger King crown sillyness
by wa2ise, December 11
240/208 to a house
240/208 to a house
by wa2ise, October 9
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 23 guests, and 17 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 625
S
Member
I can't find "junction" or "junction point" in Article 100, so it doesn't mean anything. Or perhaps, it means whatever you want it to.

This could get into an interesting epistemological debate--"If a word falls in the woods, and there's no dictionary there to hear it, does it make any meaning?" [Linked Image]

Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with these Exam Prep Combos:
 

>> Master Electrician Exam Prep     >> JourneyMan Electrician Exam Prep
 

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 64
E
Member
Since junction point is not defined in article 100, I think we need to look at the common meaning of those words. I looked in two dictionaries in the office and came up with:
Quote
1. a joining or being joined
2. place where things join

It sounds like the coupling we're talking about meets this difinition of a "junction point". But (and this is where it gets interesting) so do all of the couplings in a run of EMT for example!

I guess I can't really see any reason to treat a straight through coupling between EMT and some other raceway differently than the couplings in a run of EMT and I'm not ready to start requiring those to remain accessible [Linked Image]

I'll have to agree that the only time it makes sense to apply 300.15(F) would be at a cable/raceway transition. Looks like maybe a code change proposal is in order.

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 345
T
Member
Quote
Article 300.15 (F)
Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall remain accessable after installation.

I had a discussion today about this. EC wanted to transition from an EMT stub-up out of the floor within a partition to a short piece of greenfield so he can go into a box KO.

I know that such transitions to AC or romex have to be accessable, he doesn't think that applies to greenfield. I say it does but I'm not 100%. What do you think?

-Hal
I have always believed that if you fish wires through the changeover fitting it need not be accessible. If the changeover goes from cable to raceway however it should be accessible like any other pull point on a raceway system.
--
Tom Horne


Tom Horne

"This alternating current stuff is just a fad. It is much too dangerous for general use" Thomas Alva Edison
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
E
e57 Offline
Member
OK this one is giving me bad dreams... As I too do this all the time.... NM to EMT, and FMC to EMT, and it sounds as though I'm just learning something new... Or am I?

Quote
300.15 Boxes, Conduit Bodies, or Fittings — Where Required.
A box shall be installed at each outlet and switch point for concealed knob-and-tube wiring.
Fittings and connectors shall be used only with the specific wiring methods for which they are designed and listed. (new sentance)
Where the wiring method is conduit, tubing, Type AC cable, Type MC cable, Type MI cable, nonmetallic-sheathed cable, or other cables, a box or conduit body complying with Article 314 shall be installed at each conductor splice point, outlet point, switch point, junction point, termination point, or pull point, unless otherwise permitted in 300.15(A) through (M).

That sounds OK, fitting and connectors need to be designed and listed for the wiring method. Next sentance... No splice or pull point, no box or conduit body required....unless otherwise permitted in 300.15(A) through (M). Most are points where a box or condulet are not required, except "C" which allows all of my NM to EMT/RMC points and it makes no mention of it being accessible. Then, all the rest of the letters. (with as we know from elementary school includes "F") But "F" has a contradiction to this... Theres no mention of transition between conduit or tubing systems....

Quote
(F) Fitting. A fitting identified for the use shall be permitted in lieu of a box or conduit body where conductors are not spliced or terminated within the fitting. The fitting shall be accessible after installation.

Commentary: (NOT CODE...)
Where a cable system makes a transition to a raceway to provide mechanical protection against damage, 300.15(F) permits the use of a fitting instead of a box. For example, where nonmetallic-sheathed cable that runs overhead on floor joists and drops down on a masonry wall to supply a receptacle needs to be protected from physical damage, a short length of raceway is installed to the outlet device box. The cable sheath is removed for the length of the raceway. The cable is then inserted in the raceway and secured by a combination fitting that is fastened to the end of the raceway.


A "fitting" could mean a lot of things.... NM-EMT coupling (Which I often use) Or a FMC-EMT coupling (Which I also use) But would also include regular EMT couplings. Really if you bite hard on this definition below one could include straps too....

Quote
Fitting. An accessory such as a locknut, bushing, or other part of a wiring system that is intended primarily to perform a mechanical rather than an electrical function.

So, I just learning something new?
Would either the NM-EMT connection, or the FMC-EMT connection be required to be accessible?


Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
There was a UL statement within the last year or so that said none of the listed cable or raceway connectors are suitable for use with conduit couplings. They are only intended to be installed as a cable or flexible raceway termination at an enclosure.
Don


Don(resqcapt19)
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 58
E
Member
Wow!
I read all this last night; now I'm reading it again.
I believe that Tom Horne hit the nail on the head:

"I have always believed that if you fish wires through the changeover fitting it need not be accessible. If the changeover goes from cable to raceway however it should be accessible like any other pull point on a raceway system. "

The point at which you are changing wiring methods is required to be accessible.

NM, MC, AC,... are Listed Cable assemblies; different wiring method from Listed conductors in Listed conduit. (If I strip the sheath off new NM I have unmarked conductors: all I know is they're 90°. I have to strip 30+ yr. old NM apart to find markings, usually TW)

Changing conduit types but not conductors is not changing wiring methods.

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 751
E
Member
Quote: "Changing conduit types but not conductors is not changing wiring methods."

Not so!
The wiring method is the type of protection we provide to our conductors, be it pipe, gutter, tray, cable, cablebus or even open wiring on insulators or in a trench.
That said, sleeving NM in a conduit is not changing the wiring method. It is providing additional protection for a cable type wiring method. But, changing a run of PVC to rigid galvanized conduit where it emerges from the dirt is changing the wiring method.

Section 300.15(F) deals with a specialized type of fitting permitted to be used in lieu of a box, so long as this special type of fitting remains accessible. This does NOT mean that ALL fittings must remain accessible, only this one type of fitting.


Earl
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 751
E
Member
e57 gave us the answer (although he took a lot of words to say it)
Section 300.15(F) is merely saying that the adapter fitting we use to change from NM or AC cable to EMT needs to remain accessible.


But what about the adapter fitting we use to change from PVC to rigid galvanized (terminal adapter)? or the FMC to EMT? or even the home-brew connector-coupling-connector pairing? The code does not make any distinction between these. Clearly, the NEC needs to be more specific in this area.

What e57 missed is the phrase "identified for the use" which excludes all fittings except these adapter types.


Earl
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 167
S
Member
At the point where the flex to emt transition is installed, there is not a(n):
conductor splice point
outlet point
switch point
junction point
termination point
pull point

therefore (A) through (M) do not apply

UL's statement about couplings not suitable for use with connectors is another hidden little technicality. While 110.3(B) is in play here, I think an AHJ could accept the use as suitable.
You can get them wrench tight into the coupling.
I would like to know if they were evaluated and found not suitable or just not evaluated.


Larry LeVoir
Inspector
City of Irvine, CA
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,391
I
Moderator
Quote
There was a UL statement within the last year or so that said none of the listed cable or raceway connectors are suitable for use with conduit couplings. They are only intended to be installed as a cable or flexible raceway termination at an enclosure.
Don

If I recall it was even worse than that, the connectors are only to be used with locknuts.

Meaning you could not enter a threaded hub with a fitting.

Want to run UF into a bell box?

UL says no, the connectors are not listed for the purpose.

I will continue to ignore this foolishness.


Bob Badger
Construction & Maintenance Electrician
Massachusetts
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Featured:

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians
 

* * * * * * *
2023 National Electrical Code (NEC)
2023 NEC Now Available!
 
* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
Trumpy
Trumpy
SI,New Zealand
Posts: 8,432
Joined: July 2002
Top Posters(30 Days)
BigB 4
triple 3
Popular Topics(Views)
303,025 Are you busy
232,129 Re: Forum
216,836 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5