That's just ludicrous compared to traditional in-the-field practice. Traditional in the sense of what has been done for at least a half century... with very little if not no consequence.
I did not say otherwise. In fact, I already pointed out that I agreed with you in Post #32 (and implied such again in Post #35)
Yes, but look at the diagram as to how R1 and R2 are "formed". They are both tangential to 90?-to-body conduit. That would only be true of a cable that completely fills the I.D. of the conduit. We all know fill requirements are 1 @ 53%, 2 @ 31%, and >2 @ 40% of cross-sectional area. A cable smaller than the I.D. of the conduit would be more relaxed on entry, as in the lower depiction I posted earlier.
Of course. For LV cable, the concerns are usually the stress on the insulation and the deformation of the conductor. As you know, for MV cable and HV cable there is more stuff in the sandwich to get squished, punctured, tortured, and violated and it is more tenderer (also true for some comm cable, fiber, etc).
Traditional for whom (or is it "who?"... I never can remember)? If you violate the minimum radius then it is violated. The violation length, frequency, or lack of available violation evidence does not negate the violation.
The table uses the the short distance (bottom of horizontal conduit and left of vertical conduit) but if you can work it out in more precise detail and not over-bend the cable then that might allow you to use a smaller conduit body in some cases. Perhaps a table of all scenarios you plan to encounter on the job would be handy to have so you could save a few bucks.
Or forced against the short distance walls, which could happen with multiple cables. But for one cable, your point is certainly valid.
That is certainly a valid point for a single cable but might be a stretch for multiple cables unless someone put in a whole lot of effort to make sure the cables were oriented just right.
Traditional as in existing installations and for electricians in the field that actually install the stuff
Likely so.
Unless the powers that be on the project take first hand interest, that's not going to happen. I have worked on power plant projects that the engineers enumerated all pieces of conduit runs, just short of actual cut lengths of conduit. Even then, I never saw an upsized conduit body spec'd.
Here's one I did in CAD.
I suspect that is because usually you have a bunch of small wires inside and the bending radius was not close to being violated. However, if someone had a big cable instead, and did not upsize to prevent a bending violation, then they messed up. I would expect the professionals here know better than to do that.
But did they have a single cable or a bunch of little cables? I would expect a bunch of little cables, otherwise: shame, shame. I don't think they would get away with that at a nuke plant, not for long anyway.
Works for me. Since the OP asked about a tee, and you seem to be in the mood, how about a tee model for the OP application?
Me too. Unless someone feels like paying for it, I'm not feeling it.
Traditional as in existing installations and for electricians in the field that actually install the stuff
I can tell you from experience and observation that [most] electricians in the field do not bother with determining the bending radius. The conduit body used is the same trade size as the conduit. It is extremely rare to see an upsized conduit body.
Likely so.
Unless the powers that be on the project take first hand interest, that's not going to happen. I have worked on power plant projects that the engineers enumerated all pieces of conduit runs, just short of actual cut lengths of conduit. Even then, I never saw an upsized conduit body spec'd.
Here's one I did in CAD.
The LB was downloaded from Cooper's website. Everything to scale: 3/4" Form 7 LB, 3/4" GRC crosssection positioned to max engagement depth, cable .49" diameter as the 3C/#12 in this thread, cable path simulated with a spline.
Yeah, if it's up to me to develop a math solution, everyone is going to be waiting for a long time :happyyes:
True :ashamed:. Many (most) have a internal rim that serves as a "bushed" entry, some more constricting than others. But FWIW, I wanted to use a Form 8 but couldn't locate a downloadable dwg without becoming a member to the websites having one available.
I'm referring to Type TC cables. Could start the run with one to many. Latter type runs "tree" out as they are distributed. At a "tee' for example, conduit body the size of entry conduit size, then exit ports RE'd to smaller size conduit.
Likely not!!!
If I feel rambunctious in a while... doubting it at present
I can't remember the manufacturer, but as I recall (which is not reliable in this matter
) there are some aluminum models which do not.
I can't remember the manufacturer, but as I recall (which is not reliable in this matter
Form 8 may not be necessary if it don't have the bushed entry... but listed for IMC only may be a problem.
Assuming there will be two cables when using a tee, the minimum size conduit to meet fill requirements will be 1-1/4" for a combination of two 3C/#12, or one 3C/#12 and one 3C/#14... diameters as posted by OP'er. ...
I think a reasonable assumption is the cable will have at least the volume of cylindrical projections of the inside cross section of the conduit to the extent of their intersection... right?
Excel calculator embedded in attached Word doc.
Traditional as in existing installations and for electricians in the field that actually install the stuff
I can tell you from experience and observation that [most] electricians in the field do not bother with determining the bending radius. The conduit body used is the same trade size as the conduit. It is extremely rare to see an upsized conduit body.
Likely so.
Unless the powers that be on the project take first hand interest, that's not going to happen. I have worked on power plant projects that the engineers enumerated all pieces of conduit runs, just short of actual cut lengths of conduit. Even then, I never saw an upsized conduit body spec'd.
Here's one I did in CAD.
The LB was downloaded from Cooper's website. Everything to scale: 3/4" Form 7 LB, 3/4" GRC crosssection positioned to max engagement depth, cable .49" diameter as the 3C/#12 in this thread, cable path simulated with a spline.
Yeah, if it's up to me to develop a math solution, everyone is going to be waiting for a long time :happyyes:
Looks good. :thumbsup: I knew you were in the mood.
