I've just found out that EMT compression fittings, which I've always considered to be "raintight," aren't listed for that use at this time.
Has anyone stopped using them for this purpose???...S

Not me. What are we supposed to do, use GRC or make an ugly looking PVC installation?

I've torn out quite a few outdoor EMT installations & I don't recall seeing any evidence that the connectors & couplings leaked. Of course, one man's experience is limited & this could be a real problem elsewhere.

I use them outdoors, as well, and have never had a problem or been red-tagged by an inspector for it.

On a vertical run (like a service riser), I will often smear a bit of RTV around the top compression nut as added insurance against leaks.

Since this came about, I have wondered what caused UL to rescind it's original listing of these fittings. It seems like this could be a credibility awakening for some of their other listings.

I mean, why did this just happen out of the blue, did they decide they had low water pressure the day they originally tested these way back when?

Roger

This may be old information, but http://tnbelectricalworld.tnb.com/contractor/docs/tbhazardous.pdf seems to call out raintight up to 2 inch, but a few other catalogs do not.

2½-4 inch compression-ring EMT fittings have generally not been raintight listed. A notable exception were fittings for 2½-4 inch EMT so marked, and furnished with a plainly visible rubber boot.

There are a number of ‘raintight’ hits in http://www.steelconduit.org/pdf/ConGuide4.3.pdf

Bjarney, Currently UL does not list any EMT fittings as raintight..Looks like we're all in a heck of a lot of trouble.
This is ridiculous. Failures are generally caused in the terminations...S

I agree with Tom. PVC can get pretty seedy looking outside on a building surface.

Don't "W-" and "W-2"-rated conductors buy you anything used outdoors?

I thought EMT was not listed for outdoor use--only "rigid" conduit?

Go here for UL's report.
http://www.ul.com/regulators/raintight.html

Roger

Does any one know what part of the connector failed? The connector to box? or the connector to conduit?

Thomas and Betts technical support said that the use of a seperate sealing washer would be suffcient to meet the raintight requirements.

JBD

T&B is giving you some misinformation then. If you read the UL link that Roger posted you will notice that it says fitting not connectors so this would include couplings. Anytime you enter the top of an enclosure you are required to use a hub or some type of seal between the connector and the enclosure even if the connector is listed for raintight application.

Anyone here spray their nuts with zinc to give a little extra protection?
Perhaps that's not what I wanted to ask. Does anyone here spray their EMT compression fittings with zinc?
bob

I have never tried that, Gold Bond is usually enough.

Maybe the powder would work on the EMT compression fittings?

This stuff did wonders for my acne. ;-)
 
   http://www.cool-amp.com/conducto.htm




[This message has been edited by Bjarney (edited 07-14-2003).]

Bob you can't get away with nothin' with this bunch.

Have used compression fittings and EMT outside for years and have not had a problem yet.
I saw this before on another site. I still feel that any one who is looking for a non issue to raise does not have enough to do.
For entrance to the top of a J box that is not threaded, I'll use a meyers hub. All the threaded type of boxes and fittings need is to be made up wrench tight. JMHO

By ga.sparky56


No, you can't there are too many sharp people here and that's what makes this place great.

Bob

Spoke with some people yesterday about The 'listing' of EMT fittings. Here is what UL says, which is a little tricky to understand, but I will try to repeat it.

As for the "2002 NEC" the current type of EMT fitting (which does not meet the 'new' standard) meets the 'old' standard and is acceptable to the 2002 NEC. That is why you still see the UL labeling on the boxes of fittings. As far as UL is concerned "RIGHT NOW" the fittings can be sold with the UL label.
By the next code cycle they expect to see the manufacturers making fittings to the 'new' standard.

I tried to keep it simple, the above is a 1 hour converation minus all the *^%$#@.
As far as I can see, the fittings can still be installed.I hope this helps.

Pierre

Pierre did you follow the link that Roger put up?

It is straight from UL and seems to contradict what they told you.

From the link Roger put up

This puts me in mind of the requirement changes that wire nuts went through back in '89. Wire nuts used to be Al/Cu rated until UL® added new testing requirements for the "Al" portion of the listing. Manufacturers quietly removed the "Al" from their wire nuts.

I had a conversation, then, with a UL® representative who stated that the use of the old product was still permitted until the old product was gone. This representative stated that the improvement of the product, practically speaking, took about ten years until all the stock shelves were cleared of the old product.

Two things:

First, in reference to my earlier post I was thinking direct-bury, rather than outdoor. Nevermind!

Second, here's what one manufacturer had to say on the subject of raintight fittings:
http://www.bptfittings.com/EMT%20raintight.pdf

hmmm,
so...now that the UL test puppy has piddled on the pipework, putting partsmen and proprietors in a predictable pickle pertinent to passable projects........

Precisely.