Is it against code to splice in a conduit body?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's allowed but not often practical due to cu in restrictions See 314.16(C)
 
You folks already knew I was kind of picky....

You folks already knew I was kind of picky....

I see it differently.....conduit bodies are for pulling wire. Anecdotally, you hear the term 'splice box', but I never hear the term 'splice lb' or 'splice C condolet'.

How much of a service loop can you realistically have? Using a box, should moisture/high humidity cause your splice to corrode in the future, you can cut back the bad copper & re-make the splice. You are less certain of a good outcome with a conduit body. Not to mention that you're giving the next electrician that comes along tacit permission to splice there as well.

Regarding specific cases, I see 1/2" lbs frequently used as junctions for the monitoring of butterfly valve switches. There is no way these have the cubic inch capacity required for the 2 to 4 wires coming from the monitoring module or panel, the 9 or 10 wires coming from the 2 switch contacts, plus the wire nuts and maybe an end of line resistor.

Having said this, I've not run into an inspector that has ever had an issue with it. Still, whether they call it out or not, technically the butterfly valve instance is a violation.
 
MichaelGP3 said:
I see it differently.....conduit bodies are for pulling wire.
Click to expand...

You can see it however you want but the NEC allows it if done correctly. :)


314.16 Number of Conductors in Outlet, Device, and
Junction Boxes, and Conduit Bodies.
(C) Conduit Bodies.
(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.
Click to expand...
 
MichaelGP3 said:
I see it differently.....conduit bodies are for pulling wire.
Click to expand...
Actually they can also be used for devices.

condulet_recpt_1.JPG


Roger
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Never saw one of those roger. New one for me.:grin:
Click to expand...
It's been awhile since I have seen one. This one was made by Crouse Hinds I believe, I remember using them in paper and textille mills.

Roger
 
roger said:
It's been awhile since I have seen one. This one was made by Crouse Hinds I believe, I remember using them in paper and textille mills.

Roger
Click to expand...

As do I. First job (1960s) was installing them in "C's" every 10 ft. The runs were used to support and supply power to lights in a textile mill.
After many attempts I could install them without shorting out the circuit ;)
The method there was not to splice, but skin the insulation and loop under the terminal. (sorry--=trip down nostalgia lane)
 
MichaelGP3 said:
I see it differently.....conduit bodies are for pulling wire.
... I see 1/2" lbs frequently used as junctions
... no way these have the cubic inch capacity required
... plus the wire nuts
...
Click to expand...

Michael,
Does not happen frequently, but . . .
I use crimp connectors, nearly zero additional cu in required.
I also use top-of-the-line crimp connectors and a super-crimper
powered by a great grip. :)
Comments are welcome.
 
augie47 said:
As do I. First job (1960s) was installing them in "C's" every 10 ft. The runs were used to support and supply power to lights in a textile mill.
After many attempts I could install them without shorting out the circuit ;)
The method there was not to splice, but skin the insulation and loop under the terminal. (sorry--=trip down nostalgia lane)
Click to expand...

I remember them, but I was removing them in the late 70's and 80's.

I have never installed them though.
 
Whenever I think I've seen it all, I get a reminder that I haven't even scratched the surface.
 
badbanano said:
There's isn't enough volume for the number of conductors, obsolete.
Click to expand...
By today's standards, you're probably right, but this comes from a different era of the Code. An era when, if you could get the thing closed it was "legal".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top