4sq box extensions

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jumpinjohnny

Member
Location
Oklahoma City
I thought many years ago, I read in code book, the number of extensions you could place on boxes be it 4sq or octagon. It has been awhile and I can't seem to find this info now. Can anyone help?
 
Use as many as you want there is no limit. You do need to watch the amount of free conductor in the box however.
 
As I said, I thought I read something like 3. But I was a lowly apprentice then about 16 years ago, and I don't really know how I remember about those days. Anyway I had an inspector turn me down because I had too many wires in a deep 4sq. I had 1 extension ring on. I think it was 2 wires over, and he told me I was only allowed 1 ex ring. I am trying to find where he was getting his info. Really sounds like nit picking.
 
infinity said:
Use as many as you want there is no limit. You do need to watch the amount of free conductor in the box however.
Click to expand...

300.14.
HoltBlueDot.jpg
 
I've been talking with the boss, and the question came up on article 314.16 B1 from 2005. Do I have to put a loop in a wire that goes on to another box, and it has not been spliced.

This article makes it sound as though I could run it straight through with no loop and count it only once. However if I put a loop in it I have to count it twice.

My free conductor has to be at least 6 inches with at least 3 inches extending past the edge of any box less than 8 inches in any direction. I can take extension rings off to work on box, so length should not be an issue.

There needs to be a statement in the code that says you can not use the KO's in an extension on HR conduits. The manufacturers should also make some ex rings without KO's, so that unintelligent (untrained wannabes) cannot make this bonehead move. I don't believe that is the intention of the ex ring.
 
jumpinjohnny said:
There needs to be a statement in the code that says you can not use the KO's in an extension on HR conduits. The manufacturers should also make some ex rings without KO's, so that unintelligent (untrained wannabes) cannot make this bonehead move. I don't believe that is the intention of the ex ring.
Click to expand...


What do you have against using the KO's in an extension collar? They're there for a reason, so that you can use them if needed. :cool:
 
The NEC is not the place to look. Take a peek at the UL White Book...wait, here it is ;)




METALLIC OUTLET BOXES (QCIT)

Extension Rings
Extension rings are suitable for extending properly secured flush-or surface-mounted boxes. One or more extensions may be used. An extension ring is intended to increase the box depth, volume, or both.




Add as many as you like, provided you meet the requirements of 300.14.
 
infinity said:
What do you have against using the KO's in an extension collar? They're there for a reason, so that you can use them if needed. :cool:
Click to expand...

Lets just say that probably, more than likely that the circuit to feed whatever you might be using a ex ring KO for is coming from that very first box. Now if for whatever reason you might have to get back in that box you have a mess because you have lets say an mc cable entering that 3rd ex ring down tied to the circuit that came in the main box. It might be feeding an something that would cause problems if disconnected. But you can't get in that box where you need without doing such. This is my gripe. I have seen it done and its not a beautiful thing.
 
jumpinjohnny said:
I've been talking with the boss, and the question came up on article 314.16 B1 from 2005. Do I have to put a loop in a wire that goes on to another box, and it has not been spliced.

This article makes it sound as though I could run it straight through with no loop and count it only once. However if I put a loop in it I have to count it twice.

My free conductor has to be at least 6 inches with at least 3 inches extending past the edge of any box less than 8 inches in any direction. I can take extension rings off to work on box, so length should not be an issue.

There needs to be a statement in the code that says you can not use the KO's in an extension on HR conduits. The manufacturers should also make some ex rings without KO's, so that unintelligent (untrained wannabes) cannot make this bonehead move. I don't believe that is the intention of the ex ring.
Click to expand...


If there's no splices, then why do you need an extension ring?
 
jumpinjohnny said:
I've been talking with the boss, and the question came up on article 314.16 B1 from 2005. Do I have to put a loop in a wire that goes on to another box, and it has not been spliced.

This article makes it sound as though I could run it straight through with no loop and count it only once. However if I put a loop in it I have to count it twice.

This is my next major question.
Click to expand...
 
jumpinjohnny said:
jumpinjohnny said:
I've been talking with the boss, and the question came up on article 314.16 B1 from 2005. Do I have to put a loop in a wire that goes on to another box, and it has not been spliced.

This article makes it sound as though I could run it straight through with no loop and count it only once. However if I put a loop in it I have to count it twice.

This is my next major question.
Click to expand...



this is true.
Click to expand...
 
jumpinjohnny said:
Lets just say that probably, more than likely that the circuit to feed whatever you might be using a ex ring KO for is coming from that very first box. Now if for whatever reason you might have to get back in that box you have a mess because you have lets say an mc cable entering that 3rd ex ring down tied to the circuit that came in the main box. It might be feeding an something that would cause problems if disconnected. But you can't get in that box where you need without doing such. This is my gripe. I have seen it done and its not a beautiful thing.
Click to expand...

If it was easy they would not pay us. :smile:
 
480sparky said:
If there's no splices, then why do you need an extension ring?
Click to expand...

I am asking if I have x number of circuits and some drop off at box 1 and some go down to box 2 and 3 maybe 4, it is conceivable that a person could overfill the box. If they got straight through no loop is this permitted according to the aforementioned article.

For safety I should probably kill all power to a box but this is not always practical.
 
jumpinjohnny said:
This article makes it sound as though I could run it straight through with no loop and count it only once. However if I put a loop in it I have to count it twice.
Click to expand...
That, in a nutshell, is correct. If the loop is long enough to be cut and spliced, so as to be able to connect another conductor to it, for example, then you count it thusly now. Otherwise, it can pass through looplessly.
 
jumpinjohnny said:
I am asking if I have x number of circuits and some drop off at box 1 and some go down to box 2 and 3 maybe 4, it is conceivable that a person could overfill the box. If they got straight through no loop is this permitted according to the aforementioned article.

For safety I should probably kill all power to a box but this is not always practical.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's possible, and an extension ring may be needed.

A better solution would be to plan your raceway runs and what boxes go where, so you can install a larger box (say, a 4x4x2-1/8" or 4-11/16 box instead) so it doesn't become an issue.

celtic said:
....Not being a beautiful thing is not a code violation.
Click to expand...

Now that makes me feel a whole lot better about myself!
 
480sparky said:
A better solution would be to plan your raceway runs and what boxes go where, so you can install a larger box (say, a 4x4x2-1/8" or 4-11/16 box instead) so it doesn't become an issue.
Click to expand...

I agree, you almost never say "I wish this box was smaller"

I doubt I have anything but deep 4" and 4 11/16" boxes in the truck.
 
I am sure everyone on this forum has planned everything so perfectly that there was never a need for an ex ring.

Here, every box would be a 4 deep, In a normal situation, dealing with #12 or #10 wire.

Never said anything, about a code violation.

If you were using 3/4" emt for homerun and branching out with mc and 1/2" how could you never have a splice?

I am quite sure that we could all sit here and wonder why the next person did something that you might not have done.

Plain and simple if you and I did not use ex rings, they would not be a big seller and probably would not be manufactured. So back to my original question, was there anywhere in the code that said how many you could use.? Thank you to those that answered. As I said it seems like in the 93 or 96 code I thought had seen something that limited the amount. But today I could not find anything.
 
jumpinjohnny said:
I am sure everyone on this forum has planned everything so perfectly that there was never a need for an ex ring.

Here, every box would be a 4 deep, In a normal situation, dealing with #12 or #10 wire.

Never said anything, about a code violation.

If you were using 3/4" emt for homerun and branching out with mc and 1/2" how could you never have a splice?

I am quite sure that we could all sit here and wonder why the next person did something that you might not have done.

Plain and simple if you and I did not use ex rings, they would not be a big seller and probably would not be manufactured. So back to my original question, was there anywhere in the code that said how many you could use.? Thank you to those that answered. As I said it seems like in the 93 or 96 code I thought had seen something that limited the amount. But today I could not find anything.
Click to expand...


You sure read a lot of incorrect assumptions into our responses.

No one here ever said we never have a box too small. No one ever said we never splice in those boxes. What code violations are we citing?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top