314.23(E) and 344.30(A), supporting a T fitting condulet

D

Dale001289

Senior Member
Location
Georgia
Comparing these two sections is confusing to me. Say I have a 1" RMC conduit running into a 1" trade size T condulet; one branch is 1", and the other branch is 3/4" branch (with a 1"-3/4" reducer). According to 344.30(A) I need a support within 3' of the T condulet for all three conduits. But if I look at 314.23(E), it seems I can use one support for all three conduits: one within 3' of the T and the other two conduit branches, i.e. 1" and 3/4", can be supported within 10 feet from the first support at 3' from the T. Thoughts?
 
I don't believe that a conduit body requires any support if the trade size is the same as the raceway due to the exception . Here's my thoughts on this in post #3.

Conduit Bodies Supports 314.23 (E) Ex

In regards to 314.23 (E) Ex, it states that IF your conduit body is larger than the raceway trade size, then it needs to be supported. To say it in Mike Holts words via his book, “IMC, RMC, PVC, RTRC, and EMT can support a conduit body if the trade size of the conduit body isn’t larger than the...
forums.mikeholt.com
 
Ok, but do you think a single support can be used within 3 feet of the trade size conduit body if all three branches are the same size? (No reducers). and the other two can be supported within 10' of the first support? thanks, Dale
 
Dale001289 said:
Ok, but do you think a single support can be used within 3 feet of the trade size conduit body if all three branches are the same size? (No reducers). and the other two can be supported within 10' of the first support? thanks, Dale
Click to expand...
Sure but IMO it's also not required because that code language doesn't exist when applying the exception. Thoughts?
 
infinity said:
Sure but IMO it's also not required because that code language doesn't exist when applying the exception. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
You have a valid point, but if I consider 344.30(A) as the 'base rule', and support the trade size T within 3', then at 10', 12', 14' etc per T344.30(B)(2) for the other two, I believe it has a better chance of passing inspection.
My main concern is that each of the 3 conduits do not have to be supported within 3' of the T condulet - do you agree?
 
Dale001289 said:
My main concern is that each of the 3 conduits do not have to be supported within 3' of the T condulet - do you agree?
Click to expand...
Yes I agree. If the standard 10' support rule for the raceway is followed additional supports at the conduit body are not required due to the exception. For example if I have a conduit on a rack with supports 10' apart I can cut in a C conduit body at 5' from either rack with no additional support as long as the CB is the same trade size as the raceway.
 
Assuming you are using RMC for this, I don't see how you can avoid strapping the RMC within 3' (or 5' if there isn't anything readily available for fastening ) Yes 3124.23 allows it. But there is no exception for 344.30(A)
 
jes25 said:
Assuming you are using RMC for this, I don't see how you can avoid strapping the RMC within 3' (or 5' if there isn't anything readily available for fastening ) Yes 3124.23 allows it. But there is no exception for 344.30(A)
Click to expand...

This is why it’s so confusing to me also - I tend to agree with you and OP


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
jes25 said:
Assuming you are using RMC for this, I don't see how you can avoid strapping the RMC within 3' (or 5' if there isn't anything readily available for fastening ) Yes 3124.23 allows it. But there is no exception for 344.30(A)
Click to expand...
Everything in 314.23(E) overrides the general support rules including the exception for conduit bodies that are raceway supported. Personally I think the exception should be deleted from the code language.
 
infinity said:
Everything in 314.23(E) overrides the general support rules including the exception for conduit bodies that are raceway supported. Personally I think the exception should be deleted from the code language.
Click to expand...

Infinity why do you say 314.23(E) overrides the base rule?


Enviado desde mi iPhone utilizando Tapatalk
 
Isaiah said:
Infinity why do you say 314.23(E) overrides the base rule?
Click to expand...
The basic rule is that a conduit body or the box needs to be supported within 3'. In order to apply any of the provisions of 314.23(E) which allows the raceway to support a box or conduit body you need to override the basic 3' support rule. If 314.23(E) doesn't not provide an exception to the basic 3' support rule then the wording is useless.
 
314.23(E) Exception does not provide any relief from the part of 314.23(E) that requires conduits to be secured within 3' of the enclosure. It just provides relief from the requirements about (a) the minimum of 2 conduit entries and (b) the maximum of 100 in^3 volume.

Moreover, 314.23(E) Exception can't possibly provide any relief from 344.30(A).

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
314.23(E) Exception does not provide any relief from the part of 314.23(E) that requires conduits to be secured within 3' of the enclosure. It just provides relief from the requirements about (a) the minimum of 2 conduit entries and (b) the maximum of 100 in^3 volume.

Moreover, 314.23(E) Exception can't possibly provide any relief from 344.30(A).

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I mentioned box when I shouldn't have since this question is about conduit bodies. For a conduit supported box with threaded entries I can see the requirement for the raceway to be supported within 3'. That would not be required for conduit bodies of the same trade size as the raceways.
 
infinity said:
For a conduit supported box with threaded entries I can see the requirement for the raceway to be supported within 3'. That would not be required for conduit bodies of the same trade size as the raceways.
Click to expand...
For a conduit body, it is required for each of the 5 conduit types listed in 314.23(E) Exception:

1) IMC -- 342.30(A)(1)
2) RMC -- 344.30(A)(1)
3) PVC -- 352.30(A)
4) RTRC -- 355.30(A) (although this one allows for conduit to be listed for a greater distance than 3')
5) EMT -- 358.30(A)(2) (although there is an allowance for fishing in finished buildings).

This is true whether or not 314.23(E) would require it; Article 314 can not amend the above Articles.

I also would say that 314.23(E) Exception is an exception only to the number of required conduit entries and the maximum 100 in^3 volume, and does not provide an exception to the 314.23(E) requirement for securing within 3' of the enclosure. A conduit body is an enclosure.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Wayne and Infinity. Going back to the T condulet scenario and 314.23(E):
Say we have a trade size 1” RMC T, that has 3, 3/4” RMC conduit (all 3 with 1”-3/4”reducers) would require a support within 3’ on EACH of the 3 conduits. However if we have a 1” T, with 3, 1” conduits at least one conduit support would be required within 3’ of the condulet since the base rule, ie 344.30 cannot be overridden by 314.23(E) Exception. Does this sound right?
 
Dale001289 said:
However if we have a 1” T, with 3, 1” conduits at least one conduit support would be required within 3’ of the condulet since the base rule, ie 344.30 cannot be overridden by 314.23(E) Exception
Click to expand...
344.30(A)(1) requires each conduit connected to the conduit body to be secured within 3' of the conduit body, regardless of what Article 314 says.

334.30 is about securing and supporting the conduit itself; 314.23 is about securing and supporting the conduit body. Two separate topics. The only relationship between them is that 314.23(E) says that when the conduit itself is properly supported, sometimes you can forgo supporting the conduit body directly.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
344.30(A)(1) requires each conduit connected to the conduit body to be secured within 3' of the conduit body, regardless of what Article 314 says.

334.30 is about securing and supporting the conduit itself; 314.23 is about securing and supporting the conduit body. Two separate topics. The only relationship between them is that 314.23(E) says that when the conduit itself is properly supported, sometimes you can forgo supporting the conduit body directly.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
I’ve never seen a conduit body itself being supported. You’d have to drill into the body and attach it with screws/bolts?
 
Dale001289 said:
I’ve never seen a conduit body itself being supported. You’d have to drill into the body and attach it with screws/bolts?
Click to expand...
Good question, maybe there is a more clever way to do it, but that would work. And for your example of "a trade size 1” RMC T, that has 3, 3/4” RMC conduit (all 3 with 1”-3/4”reducers)," you certainly have to secure the conduit body itself, as 314.23(E) Exception does not apply.

You could instead use a short length of 1" conduit into one of the conduit body entries, with a reducing coupling to 3/4" at the other end. Then 314.23(E) Exception does apply, and you just need to secure each of the conduits, including the 1", within 3' of the T.

Cheers, Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top