Code Compliant or Not

Status
Not open for further replies.
In the series of pictures that follow, I am curious what the general consensus is here.

Is the "raceway" installation between the two enclosures compliant?
What is the code reference(s), if any?


I am not concerned about any other issues you may see, just the question above.

6240857.jpg




6240858.jpg





6240878.jpg
 

mdshunk

Senior Member
Location
Right here.
Didn't someone post a letter from Mark Ode on that a while back?

In any event, I don't have any problems with it myself, I've done it in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. A quick check with a DLRO will show why I don't have a problem with it. The enamel on the enclosure, in that picture, should have been ruffed off the inside, though.
 
mdshunk said:
Didn't someone post a letter from Mark Ode on that a while back?

In any event, I don't have any problems with it myself, I've done it in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. A quick check with a DLRO will show why I don't have a problem with it. The enamel on the enclosure, in that picture, should have been ruffed off the inside, though.


Do you have a code reference for your statement?
 

M. D.

Senior Member
Not sure it is the end of the world,...I guess an AHJ could approve it






Western Section IAEI 101​




st Annual Meeting



September 19-21, 2005

3. Is a rigid coupling with two chase nipples a suitable raceway or nipple between two panels or 2
boxes?​



Answer:


No, the chase nipple is listed to attach to a box with a locknut not be screwed into a​




conduit coupling which depends on a wrench-tight connection also Part 5 to Article 250 requires the​

bonding to provide a low impedance path suitable for carrying the fault current. 250.​












Mark Ode says; A chase nipple screwed into a coupling from inside a panelboard (from both sides) would certainly not be

a positive bonding for either the raceway or the enclosure based on 250.92(B).
Chase nipples were intended and listed for use with a locknut and not listed with the intent to screw it into a rigid
coupling, in my opinion. Could it act as a path for fault current? Yes, however, we would not have tested it for the path of
current from the panel metal in contact with the chase nipple into the rigid coupling, through the coupling and into a chase
nipple on the other side to a panel or box. Too many questions about acceptable grounding paths and the fault path levels.
How much impedance would be introduced through arcing at....​









 

tonyou812

Senior Member
Location
North New Jersey
M. D. said:
Not sure it is the end of the world,...I guess an AHJ could approve it




























I say hogwash to that, he has an equipment ground bonded to the case. I too would have sanded the paint off in this situation. And besides it looks neat. If you fail that IMO thats getting pretty ticky tacky. Maybe thats what the had in the truck and had to get it done that day. I mean really is it really that unsafe???????
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
Pierre C Belarge said:
Is the "raceway" installation between the two enclosures compliant?
I say compliant :D No code reference available, as this compliance is solely based on proper installation of the items (...has anyone really seen the manufacturer's instructions for these items?).

I would find it strange to be non-compliant when listed connectors utilize the same method. See O-Z/Gedney's Type CH hub on second page of this linked pdf.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Pierre C Belarge said:
Do you have a code reference for your statement?

We don't need one.

The inspector needs one to fail it. :)

Mark Ode says; A chase nipple screwed into a coupling from inside a panelboard (from both sides) would certainly not be


a positive bonding for either the raceway or the enclosure based on 250.92(B).

That is an interesting position from the same origination that says reducing washers are a grounding means.


Marc said:
In any event, I don't have any problems with it myself, I've done it in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. A quick check with a DLRO will show why I don't have a problem with it. The enamel on the enclosure, in that picture, should have been ruffed off the inside, though.

I feel the same way.
 

M. D.

Senior Member
Bob ,..were the washers investigated ?? I bet they were..

Edit to add this from U.L. concerning reducing washers

GROUNDING
Metal reducing washers are considered suitable for grounding for use in circuits over and under 250 V and where installed in accordance with ANSI/NFPA 70, "National Electrical Code." Reducing washers are intended for use with metal enclosures having a minimum thickness of 0.053 in. for non-service conductors only. Reducing washers may be installed in enclosures provided with concentric or eccentric knockouts, only after all of the concentric and eccentric rings have been removed. However, those enclosures containing concentric and eccentric knockouts that have been Listed for bonding purposes may be used with reducing washers without all knockouts being removed.
 
Last edited:

TOOL_5150

Senior Member
Location
bay area, ca
Pierre, Are you concerned with the bonding aspect, or just the fact that it is 2 chase nipples and a coupling? I have done this a few times in the past, but always provided a seperate bond for the panels. Could this fail inspection, even if the panels are bonded? And of so, What would be the code violation be?

~Matt
 

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
M.D.
Investigated or not, I see the coupling and chase nipples providing a much better fault clearing path than a set of reducing washers.
 

220/221

Senior Member
Location
AZ
Chase nipples were intended and listed for use with a locknut and not listed with the intent to screw it into a rigid
coupling, in my opinion


Key words.....in my opinion.

In MY opinion, chase nipples were intended to screw into ips threads, whether it be locknuts, couplings or LB's. If they were intended to use with locknuts only, why don't they come in the box with them?

These holes were drilled in the panel and there is plenty of paint scraped off. The bonding path is obviously solid. Try jambing a conductor onto the coupling to feild test it.

IMO, If you are looking for a way to turn this down, you have too much time on your hands.;) It is similar to the guys who say that you can't use a RMC coupling with connectors to adapt different types of conduits.

The only code reference I have is the Man Code.
 

M. D.

Senior Member
don_resqcapt19 said:
M.D.
Investigated or not, I see the coupling and chase nipples providing a much better fault clearing path than a set of reducing washers.

Could very well be ,..but it does not change the fact that it was not intended for such use nor is it listed for such use
 

M. D.

Senior Member
cowboyjwc said:
I would approve it and have. As long as they pull a bond wire in which they did in this case.

But the , in this case short raceway fitting thingy , is not bonded by that wire and the fitting thingy is not listed for the purpose... I think a legitimate concern...loose connections in metal raceways are not a good thing in general , even when an equipment grounding conductor is run.
 

220/221

Senior Member
Location
AZ
it does not change the fact that it was not intended for such use

That is not a fact, simply an opinion.

Find something from the manufacturer stating it's intended use and I'll agree with you.

Can I pull an 8/32 out of a 4s box and use it somewhere else? It was intended to attach the mud ring........right?

Can I use a ground screw for a panel cover screw?

I could go on all day.
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
M. D. said:
but it does not change the fact that it was not intended for such use nor is it listed for such use

Really?

What is it's interned use?

Where can I find the instructions for RMC couplings?

As far as I am concerned the coupling is being used as a coupling.
 

brian john

Senior Member
Location
Leesburg, VA
As far as I am concerned the coupling is being used as a coupling.

Thank you for the CORRECT ANSWER, I see not harm or issues with this practice. In the whole realm of things I see everyday, this ranks somewhere at the bottom of the list or maybe not even on the list.
 

benaround

Senior Member
Location
Arizona
I have seen this exact situation written in the Section 16000 spec's. It

states to square off threaded coupling with enclosure and tighten CHASE

NIPPLE until no threads are showing. Of course, the spec's were written by

an EE. In some areas the EI inspects to the plans and spec's, I am in such an

area (Az.) therefore, by law, it is in compliance to use chase nipples and

threaded coupling as in your picture, when this common spec. is written for

the job.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top