3" Condulet Over Fill?

Status
Not open for further replies.
hyetal said:
314.28(A)(3) Smaller Dimensions.Boxes or conduit bodies of dimensions less than those required in (A)(1)and(A)(2) shall be permitted for installations of combinations of conductors etc.The operative word being SHALL
Click to expand...

So what are you saying?

Also you have only used half of the sentence, you left out "that are less than the maximum conduit or tubing fill (of conduits or tubing being used) permitted by Table 1 of 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."
 
infinity said:
... If they stamped nothing in the conduit body then what?
Click to expand...
Then that conduit body can only be used for conductors #6 and smaller, unless it meets the 6X rule.

Often a conduit body of a trade size larger than that of the raceway is used in place of a mogul conduit body. If that is the case, is the 6x based on the trade size of the conduit body or of the smaller raceway?
 
Derek,
Many have said the same as the IAEI article, but I don't find anything in the code to support that idea. The code is clear that where the conduit body does not have the dimensions required by the rules in 314.28, you can use a conduit body with smaller dimensions provided that the conduit body is listed and marked with the maximum size and number of conductors that are permitted. There is nothing to even suggest that you can do a calculation for other combinations of conductors.

I would agree that such a calculation would be reasonable, but I don't see anything in the code to permit it.

There is some new text that will likely appear in the 2014 code. This is from the panel 9 ROC ballot action on proposal 9-67.
Listed conduit bodies of dimensions less than those required in 314.28(A)(2) having a radius of the curve to the centerline not less than as indicated in Table 2, Chapter 9 for one shot and full shoe benders, shall be permitted for installations of combinations of conductors permitted by Table 1 of Chapter 9. These conduit bodies shall be marked to
show they have been specifically evaluated in accordance with this provision. Where the permitted combinations of conductors for which the box or conduit body has been listed are less than the maximum conduit or tubing fill permitted by Table 1 of Chapter 9, the box or conduit body shall be permanently marked with the maximum number and maximum size of conductors permitted.
Click to expand...
 
hyetal said:
314.28(A)(3) Smaller Dimensions.Boxes or conduit bodies of dimensions less than those required in (A)(1)and(A)(2) shall be permitted for installations of combinations of conductors etc.The operative word being SHALL
Click to expand...
No...the operative word occurs about 30 words later and is "provided".
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Then that conduit body can only be used for conductors #6 and smaller, unless it meets the 6X rule.

Often a conduit body of a trade size larger than that of the raceway is used in place of a mogul conduit body. If that is the case, is the 6x based on the trade size of the conduit body or of the smaller raceway?
Click to expand...

I agree no marking then #6 or smaller only unless it qualifies for the 6X or 8X rules.

For the second sentence, common sense (if we can use that when applying the NEC :roll:) says to use the raceway size that it's attached to.
 
I checked 1998 Nec 370-28(a)3.nec 2002 314.28 (3).nec2005 324(3) and nec2011 (314)(A)(3)state shall be permitted I can not find you're reference to 30 words later please give me a code refferal.
 
hyetal said:
I checked 1998 Nec 370-28(a)3.nec 2002 314.28 (3).nec2005 324(3) and nec2011 (314)(A)(3)state shall be permitted I can not find you're reference to 30 words later please give me a code refferal.
Click to expand...
Please read ALL of the words in 314.28(A)(3).
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Derek,
Many have said the same as the IAEI article, but I don't find anything in the code to support that idea. The code is clear that where the conduit body does not have the dimensions required by the rules in 314.28, you can use a conduit body with smaller dimensions provided that the conduit body is listed and marked with the maximum size and number of conductors that are permitted. There is nothing to even suggest that you can do a calculation for other combinations of conductors.

I would agree that such a calculation would be reasonable, but I don't see anything in the code to permit it.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing that 314.28 does not specifically allow the field calculation, but as long as my inspectors interpret it that way and it is to my advantage.........:cool:
 
jumper said:
Not disagreeing that 314.28 does not specifically allow the field calculation, but as long as my inspectors interpret it that way and it is to my advantage.........:cool:
Click to expand...
Until the "new" inspector shows up and doesn't permit those field calculations:)
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Just because they let you violate the code rule in the past does not mean they have to let you do that in the future.:)
Click to expand...

Of course not, but most reasonable people that aren't wanna be attorneys will allow the smaller conductors so long as the sq. in. area of the smaller conductors is not larger than the sq. in. area of the max size and number of the listing. At least on manufacturer has said this is a reasonable methodology and more than one inspector has agreed.

You guys are something else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top