conduit bends less than 90 deg. illegal?

[masterinbama]

344.26 Bends - Number in One Run.There shall not be more than the equivalent of four quarter bends (360 degrees total) between pull points, for example, conduit bodies and boxes.

I have had inspectors and engineers both try to tell me that I cannot pull through more than 360 degrees of bends even though I had a condulet C in the run with 3 90's one way and 2 the other. I argued that as long as I didn't exceed the maximum pulling force on the cable I was within code.

 

[Sierrasparky]

You might call it one of those roundtuits

 

[mivey]

I have had inspectors and engineers both try to tell me that I cannot pull through more than 360 degrees of bends even though I had a condulet C in the run with 3 90's one way and 2 the other. I argued that as long as I didn't exceed the maximum pulling force on the cable I was within code.

If the condulet C was a pull point, they had no 344.26 code to stand on.

 

[480sparky]

I have to disagree. More than 90 degrees is illeagal. The code says 4 quarter bends and 91 degrees is more than 1/4 of 360. All of the inspectors in this area would agree with me. I've seen them fail jobs where "Shepard Hooks" were used.

Tell me what code section this pipe violates, then:

The term Bo Peep seems to be one of the few electrical slang terms recognized nationwide. I have had J-men in my supervision from all over the country and most have called that a Bo Peep bend

As I was posting last night, I knew there was a third term they are referred to as. I finally thought of it this morning: Candy Canes.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Tell me what code section this pipe violates, then:

Thats a chain link

 

[480sparky]

Thats a chain link

Not no more!

 

[JFletcher]

Not no more!

Almost looks like a new NASCAR track! :grin:

One could have 2000* of bend in a conduit run as long as there are pull points < every 360*. I wouldn't want to pull cable through that, but it would be code compliant.

 

[Sierrasparky]

Not no more!

Give it a bit of a twist and you have an expansion joint.

 

[480sparky]

Almost looks like a new NASCAR track! :grin:

One could have 2000* of bend in a conduit run as long as there are pull points < every 360*. I wouldn't want to pull cable through that, but it would be code compliant.

To tell the truth, I have seen a 4' piece of ?" EMT bent just like that many moons ago.

Working in a house,there were two ?" pipes that left the top of the panel, turned and followed the (finished) basement ceiling, then entered two side-by-side 8b boxes. The boxes touched each other. Then the pipes continued out the other end of the boxes.

Apparently, someone in the past needed to get a circuit from one box into the other. Instead of taking the two KOs out and installing a chase nipple, I kid you not, they installed a pipe bent in a 360 just like my drawing. No saddle or box offsets, just a pair of 180? bends back to back.

I have no photos of it because digital cameras were just coming to market.

 

[LarryFine]

I have had inspectors and engineers both try to tell me that I cannot pull through more than 360 degrees of bends even though I had a condulet C in the run with 3 90's one way and 2 the other. I argued that as long as I didn't exceed the maximum pulling force on the cable I was within code.

I have had to add C-condulets for pull-points for the same reason. The inspector insisted that any offsets, no matter how shallow, are considered to be 45 degrees.

They can't both be right.

 

[Microwatt]

Tell me what code section this pipe violates, then:

As I was posting last night, I knew there was a third term they are referred to as. I finally thought of it this morning: Candy Canes.

It violates 344.26. What is pictured is the equivilant of 2 half (180 degree) bends which is more than equivilant of 4 quarter (90 degree) bends. 360/4 = 90. The inspectors here won't allow more than a 90 degree bend. A "U" bend would have to be back to back 90's with at least a noticeable straight section between them. I'm not saying anyone is wrong in this thread, but this what we are forced to do here.

 

[Sierrasparky]

It violates 344.26. What is pictured is the equivilant of 2 half (180 degree) bends which is more than equivilant of 4 quarter (90 degree) bends. 360/4 = 90. The inspectors here won't allow more than a 90 degree bend. A "U" bend would have to be back to back 90's with at least a noticeable straight section between them. I'm not saying anyone is wrong in this thread, but this what we are forced to do here.

I guess not sheep hooks in your neck of the woods.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

A "U" bend would have to be back to back 90's with at least a noticeable straight section between them. I'm not saying anyone is wrong in this thread, but this what we are forced to do here.

Now here is a classic case of memorizing or enforcing code without understanding the reasons for a code requirement. If the two 90's with a 1/4 inch straight section was acceptable to them, then they have no logical reason to oppose a bend beyond 90. Part of interpreting code is to understand the reasons behind the code.

 

[480sparky]

It violates 344.26. What is pictured is the equivilant of 2 half (180 degree) bends which is more than equivilant of 4 quarter (90 degree) bends. 360/4 = 90. The inspectors here won't allow more than a 90 degree bend. A "U" bend would have to be back to back 90's with at least a noticeable straight section between them. I'm not saying anyone is wrong in this thread, but this what we are forced to do here.

There are 360? worth of bends here. I do not exceed what is stated in 344.26 (actually, it should be 358.46 as this is EMT, but it's a minor point here).

NOWHERE in the code does it state that the maximum bend shall be 90?. If I'm not mistaken, all the 3xx.26 Articles [regarding racesways at least] read "There shall not be more than the equivalent of four quarter bends (360 degrees total) between pull points, for example, conduit bodies and boxes." Equivalant is the key word here. There is no 'maximum' or 'minimum' in those Articles.

I have "the equivalant of four quarter bends" in this pipe, and therefore this will meet code. If inspectors in your area are misinterpreting the code, maybe you could help educate them instead of knuckling under their oppresive jack-boots.

 

[roger]

It violates 344.26. What is pictured is the equivilant of 2 half (180 degree) bends which is more than equivilant of 4 quarter (90 degree) bends. 360/4 = 90.

Huhhhh? Two 180? bends is in fact the exact equivilent of 4 quarter bends which is 360?



Roger

 

[Microwatt]

Now here is a classic case of memorizing or enforcing code without understanding the reasons for a code requirement. If the two 90's with a 1/4 inch straight section was acceptable to them, then they have no logical reason to oppose a bend beyond 90. Part of interpreting code is to understand the reasons behind the code.

Educate me then. What was the code panel's intent when the included the words "four quarter bends"? Why not just say: "There shall not be more than 360 between pull points."

 

[Microwatt]

If inspectors in your area are misinterpreting the code, maybe you could help educate them instead of knuckling under their oppresive jack-boots.

We tried once in a continuing ed. class. In attendance were the Director of Inspectors, two city inspectors, two state inspectors, and around 450 electricians. They would not budge on this because of the phrase "four quarter bends". Maybe I'll submit a proposal to have that verbage removed. Just to see what they say.

 

[480sparky]

We tried once in a continuing ed. class. In attendance were the Director of Inspectors, two city inspectors, two state inspectors, and around 450 electricians. They would not budge on this because of the phrase "four quarter bends". Maybe I'll submit a proposal to have that verbage removed. Just to see what they say.

Then you just tell 'em that the thousands of Mike Holts' Forum members say they're wrong.:grin:

 

[Sierrasparky]

We tried once in a continuing ed. class. In attendance were the Director of Inspectors, two city inspectors, two state inspectors, and around 450 electricians. They would not budge on this because of the phrase "four quarter bends". Maybe I'll submit a proposal to have that verbage removed. Just to see what they say.

Boy , That's standing their ground.
You'd think this practice was going to kill someone.

 

[KentAT]

Educate me then. What was the code panel's intent when the included the words "four quarter bends"? Why not just say: "There shall not be more than 360 between pull points."

...maybe because it is easier for inspectors to count to 4 instead of adding numbers up to 360 (no, really - not bashing anyone here...:grin

And the following makes it easier for them to account for anything less than 45 degrees, so they would only have to count to 8!

The inspector insisted that any offsets, no matter how shallow, are considered to be 45 degrees.

Bottom line is for the inspectors to understand the rule as it is written, and follow it without their personal spin...

Kent