support violation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
LarryFine

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
iwire said:
Take a seat Tony .................







.... you have changed my mind. :grin:
Click to expand...
Oh, and I get no credit for my statement in post #29?


Boo-hoo! Bob doesn't love me anymore!
icon9.gif
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
LarryFine said:
Would you argue that an inspector has nothing to say about a conduit installation if no wiring has been installed? :cool:
Click to expand...
It is not my installation, but it is an electrical installation for some "green areas" in city business district sidewalks.
 
mxslick

mxslick

Senior Member
Location
SE Idaho
LarryFine said:
Oh, and I get no credit for my statement in post #29?


Boo-hoo! Bob doesn't love me anymore!
icon9.gif
Click to expand...

LOL Larry, you mentioned lawyers which distracted everyone from what you meant.

I'm sure Bob still loves you. :grin:

don_resqcapt19 said:
It is not my installation, but it is an electrical installation for some "green areas" in city business district sidewalks.
Click to expand...

Then you can bet there will at least be a receptacle for Xmas lights installed. Any bets on if it will be a gfci? Or have an in-use cover?
 
Jim W in Tampa

Jim W in Tampa

Senior Member
Location
Tampa Florida
LarryFine said:
Would you argue that an inspector has nothing to say about a conduit installation if no wiring has been installed? :cool:
Click to expand...

It might be for other than normal voltage. Untill we know whats going in them we have nothing but pipe and a box. Might just be a junction box and then it is fine. Simply not enough info here yet. If its for a receptacle or switch then yes violation. Why would it be inspected at this point ? It is not finished, might be getting a 4x4 behind it.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Jim W in Tampa said:
It might be for other than normal voltage. Untill we know whats going in them we have nothing but pipe and a box. Might just be a junction box and then it is fine. Simply not enough info here yet. If its for a receptacle or switch then yes violation. Why would it be inspected at this point ? It is not finished, might be getting a 4x4 behind it.
Click to expand...
The conduits will be the support for the box. It will contain a receptacle.
 
don_resqcapt19

don_resqcapt19

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Illinois
Occupation
retired electrician
Jim W in Tampa said:
It might be for other than normal voltage. Untill we know whats going in them we have nothing but pipe and a box. Might just be a junction box and then it is fine. Simply not enough info here yet. If its for a receptacle or switch then yes violation. Why would it be inspected at this point ? It is not finished, might be getting a 4x4 behind it.
Click to expand...
Jim,
How is it fine if it is a junction box, and not if there is a receptacle in the box?
 
mxslick

mxslick

Senior Member
Location
SE Idaho
don_resqcapt19 said:
Jim,
How is it fine if it is a junction box, and not if there is a receptacle in the box?
Click to expand...


See the bold part. :grin:

314.23 (F) Raceway-Supported Enclosures, with Devices, Luminaires, or Lampholders. An enclosure that contains a device(s), other than splicing devices, or supports a luminaire(s), lampholder, or other equipment and is supported by entering raceways shall not exceed 1650 cm3 (100 in.3) in size. It shall have threaded entries or have hubs identified for the purpose. It shall be supported by two or more conduits threaded wrenchtight into the enclosure or hubs. Each conduit shall be secured within 450 mm (18 in.) of the enclosure.
Click to expand...

Wirenuts, Wagos, etc. are splicing devices and so if this was to be a junction box there would be no violation in this case.
 
V

Volta

Senior Member
Location
Columbus, Ohio
I don't see the difference :confused:.
480sparky said:

The exception s to 314.23(F) are different than the exception to 314.24(E).
Click to expand...
The exceptions only pertain to conduit bodies, or boxes supporting lighting equipment.
mxslick said:
See the bold part. :grin:



Wirenuts, Wagos, etc. are splicing devices and so if this was to be a junction box there would be no violation in this case.
Click to expand...

Both sub-sections (E) and (F) , for without and with devices, require the "two or more conduits threaded wrenchtight into the enclosure or hubs".
 
mxslick

mxslick

Senior Member
Location
SE Idaho
Volta said:
I don't see the difference :confused:.

The exceptions only pertain to conduit bodies, or boxes supporting lighting equipment.


Both sub-sections (E) and (F) , for without and with devices, require the "two or more conduits threaded wrenchtight into the enclosure or hubs".
Click to expand...

Actually I see it the other way, i.e. if you are NOT supporting luminares or receptacles then you can use the compression fittings, as the "bold part" exempts the requirements that follow. Which makes sense to me as without luminares/devices the box is unlikely to be subject to any physical strain other than it's own weight.

This is an example of why I have said that the Code is sometimes as clear as mud. :grin:

Besides. Bob even agreed with me and his word is gospel. :grin:
 
Last edited:
V

Volta

Senior Member
Location
Columbus, Ohio
mxslick said:
Actually I see it the other way, i.e. if you are NOT supporting luminares or receptacles then you can use the compression fittings, as the "bold part" exempts the requirements that follow. Which makes sense to me as without luminares/devices the box is unlikely to be subject to any physical strain other than it's own weight.

This is an example of why I have said that the Code is sometimes as clear as mud. :grin:
Click to expand...

Oh yes, it is muddy! But if we reread sub-section (E), we see that it pertains to an "enclosure that does not contain a device(s) other than splicing devices or support a luminaire..."

Both sub-sections discount splicing devices. That said, (E) is for junction or termination points, and (F) is for the support of devices. Thus the shorter lengths allowed for the second.

Both require threads to connect the conduit to the enclosure.
 
M

macmikeman

Senior Member
Location
Planet macmikeman
I'm sorry for jumping in on this so late, (sometimes the wind is blowing so hard it takes longer for the threads to get all the way out here I guess), but anyway. One 50 pound sack of Quickcrete, and a short Sonotube, water, embedded unistrut, a wheelbarrow, and I bet you could be right back in support city for that box in about a half hour.
 
Jim W in Tampa

Jim W in Tampa

Senior Member
Location
Tampa Florida
macmikeman said:
I'm sorry for jumping in on this so late, (sometimes the wind is blowing so hard it takes longer for the threads to get all the way out here I guess), but anyway. One 50 pound sack of Quickcrete, and a short Sonotube, water, embedded unistrut, a wheelbarrow, and I bet you could be right back in support city for that box in about a half hour.
Click to expand...

Why even do that much ? Why would 4 feet of strut in the dirt not be enough ? A 4x4 does not require concrete.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top