314.28, Splice Constitutes “Same Conductor”?

[Invictus107]

Hey guys

Want some input on this 314.28(A)(2) requirement pertaining to J box conduit entrance req:

“The distance between raceway entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less than six times the metric designator (trade size) of the larger raceway.”

Is this requirement in effect for splices? The section is referring to splices but breaking the line in my mind no longer qualifies the “same conductor” verbiage.

 

[Greentagger]

“Where splices or where angle or U pulls”………….. I would say it counts as splices are specifically mentioned.

 

[Fred B]

If you are looking at the 2017, this section has 2 parts for sizing, applying to (1) #4 AWG conductors and larger, and (2) if sizing based on raceway. So assuming you are working within that limitation. Sizing requirements are to accommodate max bend radius of the conductors.

(conduit) sizes.

Is this requirement in effect for splices? The section is referring to splices but breaking the line in my mind no longer qualifies the “same conductor” verbiage.

I would say based on heading it applies. In reality a splice point make the 2 conductors 1. I've seen illustration of this using line drawing and related to multiple entries into the enclosure that showed the calculations points to get the minimum distance for conduit placement, and use of conductors of same circuit whether spliced or uncut as being same conductor set.
I can see a point if using a splice having 2 conduit (or cable assembly) directly adjacent to each other and in same wall would seem to be ok as a splice could alleviate the bend radius requirements using the proper splice device.
But this section, as specific to conduit entering perpendicular to each other, (or cable entries) any splice means available, or if making a ubend of a continuous conductor, it could create an overbending of the larger conductors listed in this section. Not sure off hand if this is addressed elsewhere in the code that would change this requirement.
Seems a condition for parallel adjacent conduit could logically be included as an exception if using an appropriate splice means (maybe you need to make a code proposal if you see and feel strongly that this specifically need to be addressed).

 

[electrofelon]

Hey guys

Want some input on this 314.28(A)(2) requirement pertaining to J box conduit entrance req:

“The distance between raceway entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less than six times the metric designator (trade size) of the larger raceway.”

Is this requirement in effect for splices? The section is referring to splices but breaking the line in my mind no longer qualifies the “same conductor” verbiage.

I don't think a splice gets you around the requirement.

While on the topic, recently in another thread I complained about this section. It seems that they assume you will pull the conductor tight between the two raceways. If you have a large box, you can make a nice big loop to get the conductor's routed in and out of the raceways. I think there should be an exception taking this into consideration. I haven't really contemplated the exact wording, but this requirement seems silly and likely written by code writers who don't have experience in the field.

 

[wwhitney]

Note that the requirement on the "distance between raceway entries enclosing the same conductor" occurs in the second paragraph of (2017) 314.28(A)(2), while the "distance between each raceway entry inside the box or conduit body and the opposite wall" requirement is in the first main paragraph. So I would suggest that "same conductor" means "unspliced conductor."

Seems like for a splice between two conductors, there's no practical need for the extra space between raceway entries (if I understand correctly, I've not done any applicable hands on work). So that would be the common sense interpretation to me.

As there's disagreement on this, time to look up the recent ROPs on the sections to see if any clarifying changes have been proposed and what the CMP's comments on them would reveal about the intention. I'll try if I have time later.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I agree that a splice should not need as much space as one continuous wire in terms of the bends but I think this may be a case of the NEC being a design manual. If someone where to replace those conductors with a continuous run then there would be a need for the spacing. It would be a bummer to have to move the piping around at a later date if the need should arise.

 

[Rick 0920]

Based on an earlier thread concerning length of free conductors left at outlet boxes, it was proven to me that it is the intent of the code that "spliced" conductors are the "same" conductors. So with that in mind, the distance between raceway entries would be 6 times the largest raceway.

 

[wwhitney]

Based on an earlier thread concerning length of free conductors left at outlet boxes, it was proven to me that it is the intent of the code that "spliced" conductors are the "same" conductors. So with that in mind, the distance between raceway entries would be 6 times the largest raceway.

Comparing the langue in the sections (2017):

300.14 "At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor . . ."
314.28(A)(2) "The distance between raceway entries enclosing the same conductor . . ."

Seems reasonable to me to say that "free conductor" does not imply unspliced, while "same conductor" does.

As to the OP, a splice could be between two different size conductors, are people saying that the two sides of the splice would still be the "same" conductor despite being different sizes?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Comparing the langue in the sections (2017):

300.14 "At least 150 mm (6 in.) of free conductor . . ."
314.28(A)(2) "The distance between raceway entries enclosing the same conductor . . ."

Seems reasonable to me to say that "free conductor" does not imply unspliced, while "same conductor" does.

As to the OP, a splice could be between two different size conductors, are people saying that the two sides of the splice would still be the "same" conductor despite being different sizes?

Cheers, Wayne

Or....It could be that cmp 3 who wrote Article 300 used different language than cmp 9 who wrote art. 314

 

[wwhitney]

Or....It could be that cmp 3 who wrote Article 300 used different language than cmp 9 who wrote art. 314

Right, I thought about mentioning that. There's no reason to expect undefined language in one section to correlate with undefined language in another section written by a different CMP.

So how about my claim that spliced conductors can't be considered the "same" conductor for the purposes of applying 314.28, as they could be different sizes (even if they aren't in a particular application), and so are obviously different?

Cheers, Wayne