Why did this fail????????

[hardworkingstiff]

Price the LB, price a 6?6?36 wireway and my time to make two KO's. Now price your time dealing with the inspector. I have the same problem here and until we can all get on the same page, the Kennedy method for 4 wire installs.

Chris,
Is that a NEMA 1 wireway installed in an outdoor or wet location? I couldn't help notice the wet rated fixture, compression fittings, and "bell" box.

 

[brian john]

, you might as well never use one ever again! .

And the electrical world would be a better place.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...

Meaning that the 3" lb that is smaller that the 6 X rule can be used, and shall be permitted for installations of combinations of conductors can be used??:?

It has to be marked with the maximum size and number of conductors that are permitted. If a fitting is marked for 3 350kcmil conductors, you can use any three conductors that are 350 or smaller. The issue is when you try to use it for more than 3 conductors. There is no code provision that tells you how to calculate this and in the absence of a marking on the fitting permitting more than 3 conductors, you have to go back to the rule that requires the conduits to have a 6x spacing.

 

[chevyx92]

It has to be marked with the maximum size and number of conductors that are permitted. If a fitting is marked for 3 350kcmil conductors, you can use any three conductors that are 350 or smaller. The issue is when you try to use it for more than 3 conductors. There is no code provision that tells you how to calculate this and in the absence of a marking on the fitting permitting more than 3 conductors, you have to go back to the rule that requires the conduits to have a 6x spacing.

Look at post number 13 and tell me that link does not allow more than 3. I would be in compliance with 110.3b.

 

[iwire]

Look at post number 13

I have.

and tell me that link does not allow more than 3.

It does not.

I would be in compliance with 110.3b.

No, you would not, the letter in that link is not part of the label or an instruction that is part of the listing. :smile:

David H. Campbell can not change the NEC.


I can get a 4 11/16" box with 8 - 1" KOs on the sides does that mean I can use all 8 KOs and fill each EMT to capacity and expect the box fill to be OK?

Conduit bodies and boxes are part of the same NEC Article.

 

[chevyx92]

I have.



It does not.



No, you would not, the letter in that link is not part of the label or an instruction that is part of the listing. :smile:

David H. Campbell can not change the NEC.


I can get a 4 11/16" box with 8 - 1" KOs on the sides does that mean I can use all 8 KOs and fill each EMT to capacity and expect the box fill to be OK?

Conduit bodies and boxes are part of the same NEC Article.

I don't agree. He is stating the products listing not changing the nec. In your view them when would yov ever use there big lbs?

 

[Mike01]

LB's

LB's

Why not just us Mogul LB's made with the correct pulling for over
#4 cables? I have used these plenty of times contractors seem to like them and AHJ's have never had a problem with them around here?

http://www.appletonelec.com/pdf/A-24thru31[1].pdf

just one manufacturer.

 

[iwire]

I don't agree. He is stating the products listing not changing the nec.

I see no refrence to any listing, it looks like a palin old open letter of his opinion.

In your view them when would yov ever use there big lbs?

I don't any more.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Look at post number 13 and tell me that link does not allow more than 3. I would be in compliance with 110.3b.

I addressed that link in post 19.

 

[SEO]

Mogul lb's comply with section 314.28 (A) (2). Has anybody seen one for pvc?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I don't agree. He is stating the products listing not changing the nec. In your view them when would yov ever use there big lbs?

Yes, he is trying to change the NEC. The rule says use a fitting with 6x conduit spacing or use conductors that are equal to or smaller then those listed on the fitting. This applies to both the size and quanity of conductors. There is nothing in the NEC that says you can make a calculation to use more conductors than listed on the fitting, even if they are smaller than those on the fitting.

If Carlon wants to be able to do this, they need to send in a code proposal to make this change.

 

[chevyx92]

Yes, he is trying to change the NEC. The rule says use a fitting with 6x conduit spacing or use conductors that are equal to or smaller then those listed on the fitting. This applies to both the size and quanity of conductors. There is nothing in the NEC that says you can make a calculation to use more conductors than listed on the fitting, even if they are smaller than those on the fitting.

If Carlon wants to be able to do this, they need to send in a code proposal to make this change.

Wrong again. Then please tell me with why there is a MAX CU IN Fill????? If you don't use the 3 conductors its listing as its MAX SIZE and want to use you less than as long as you dont go over the MAX CU IN you should be ok, IMO. If you were suppose to use just the 3 conductors and the size given, they wouldn't need to list a MAX CU IN fill. In all actuality if you could only have 3 conductors then you would not be able to pull a ground wire and all these LB's would be worthless by your point of view. Because honestly what good is a pvc LB if you can ONLY put 3 conductors in it? I don't agree with you or a few others on here. Just doesn't make sense logically. If it did then they would not make these LB's anymore and they would be phased out.

 

[chevyx92]

There is nothing in the NEC that says you can make a calculation to use more conductors than listed on the fitting, even if they are smaller than those on the fitting.

There is nothing that says you can't make a calculation, as a matter fact you NEED to make a calculation when you are going to have a combination of conductors. 314.28(A)(3) spells out that you can have a "combinations of conductors" (key words) as long as they are less than the maximum conduit or tubing fill permitted by Table 1 chapter 9, provided the box or conduit body has been listed for, and is permanently marked with, the maximum number and maximum size of conductors permitted.

So if an LB is marked like the above requires with the MAX 3-350, then you are allowed to
have a "combinations of conductors" (key words) as long as they are less than the maximum conduit or tubing fill permitted by Table 1 chapter 9, BECAUSE the LB complies with "provided the box or conduit body has been listed for, and is permanently marked with, the maximum number and maximum size of conductors permitted". Does anyone see what I'm saying here?????????????????????

 

[infinity]

There is nothing that says you can't make a calculation, as a matter fact you NEED to make a calculation when you are going to have a combination of conductors. 314.28(A)(3) spells out that you can have a "combinations of conductors" (key words) as long as they are less than the maximum conduit or tubing fill permitted by Table 1 chapter 9, provided the box or conduit body has been listed for, and is permanently marked with, the maximum number and maximum size of conductors permitted.

So if an LB is marked like the above requires with the MAX 3-350, then you are allowed to
have a "combinations of conductors" (key words) as long as they are less than the maximum conduit or tubing fill permitted by Table 1 chapter 9, BECAUSE the LB complies with "provided the box or conduit body has been listed for, and is permanently marked with, the maximum number and maximum size of conductors permitted". Does anyone see what I'm saying here?????????????????????

I see what you're saying and would like to interpret it that way since it actually might make logical sense but sorry Chevy I still don't agree.

 

[chevyx92]

I see what you're saying and would like to interpret it that way since it actually might make logical sense but sorry Chevy I still don't agree.

Well how do you interpret 314.28(A)(3) then?????????

 

[RUWired]

Well how do you interpret 314.28(A)(3) then?????????

Listening to Don and the others, i can explain what the problem is.
Typically when you use annex C.10 for pvc pipe and the number of conductors allowed, you'll see 3" pvc pipe allows 5 350 kcmil thwn conductors. If you use combinations of conductors you go to table 4 and table 5 to figure the area of conductors and conduit diameters.
With LB's, there is'nt any listed tables to find the info to do the math on combinations of conductors. The cu" in the LB is'nt enough info to go on.If the CU" were listed in the NEC tables then you could.

Rick

 

[chevyx92]

Listening to Don and the others, i can explain what the problem is.
Typically when you use annex C.10 for pvc pipe and the number of conductors allowed, you'll see 3" pvc pipe allows 5 350 kcmil thwn conductors. If you use combinations of conductors you go to table 4 and table 5 to figure the area of conductors and conduit diameters.
With LB's, there is'nt any listed tables to find the info to do the math on combinations of conductors. The cu" in the LB is'nt enough info to go on.If the CU" were listed in the NEC tables then you could.

Rick

BULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The CU IN is listed for a reason. Just like any other stamped, embedded, scribed listing. It has a purpose, don't ride the death train. Since you did not expalin why there is a MAX CU IN fill then, I will expect more of an answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LarryFine]

Because honestly what good is a pvc LB if you can ONLY put 3 conductors in it?

Well, we do install single-phase stuff once in a while, y'know. :wink:

 

[RUWired]

BULL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The CU IN is listed for a reason. Just like any other stamped, embedded, scribed listing. It has a purpose, don't ride the death train. Since you did not expalin why there is a MAX CU IN fill then, I will expect more of an answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just trying to make sense of it all.. To answer your question,,, see 314.16(C)2
(2) With Splices, Taps, or Devices. Only those conduit bodies that are durably and legibly marked by the manufacturer with their volume shall be permitted to contain splices, taps, or devices. The maximum number of conductors shall be calculated in accordance with 314.16(B). Conduit bodies shall be supported in a rigid and secure manner.
Rick

 

[LarryFine]

With LB's, there is'nt any listed tables to find the info to do the math on combinations of conductors. The cu" in the LB is'nt enough info to go on.If the CU" were listed in the NEC tables then you could.

What the no-you-can't side is saying is that the "max-3-350" conductors rating does not mean "or the equivalent area," right?