Angle fittings

[aramg83]

I've recently noticed the use of either 45 or 90 degree angle throat fittings to connect to both motor terminal housings and transformers in tight spaces, particularly in connecting LFMC. How is it these fittings are allowable by NEC considering their tiny bend radii (they essentially look like plumbing elbows) for #4 and larger wire?

Thanks

 

[Smart $]

I've recently noticed the use of either 45 or 90 degree angle throat fittings to connect to both motor terminal housings and transformers in tight spaces, particularly in connecting LFMC. How is it these fittings are allowable by NEC considering their tiny bend radii (they essentially look like plumbing elbows) for #4 and larger wire?

Thanks

The NEC does not have any minimum bending radius requirements for building wire less than 600V. It does for cable... and wire over 600V. (all IIRC)

 

[don_resqcapt19]

While Smart's answer is code correct, I still have the same question as the original poster. If we were using a conduit body, we would have to use one that complies with 314.28 when using conductors #4 and larger.
Why is there not a rule like this for flexible conduit fittings? Is it only because we normally pull a lot less conductor through a flexible conduit fitting than we do through a conduit body? If that is the answer, where is the restiction on how much conductor we are permitted to pull through the flexible conduit fitting?

 

[xformer]

While Smart's answer is code correct, I still have the same question as the original poster. If we were using a conduit body, we would have to use one that complies with 314.28 when using conductors #4 and larger.
Why is there not a rule like this for flexible conduit fittings? Is it only because we normally pull a lot less conductor through a flexible conduit fitting than we do through a conduit body? If that is the answer, where is the restiction on how much conductor we are permitted to pull through the flexible conduit fitting?

Sounds like a good Proposal for '14.

 

[fishin' electrician]

While Smart's answer is code correct, I still have the same question as the original poster. If we were using a conduit body, we would have to use one that complies with 314.28 when using conductors #4 and larger.
Why is there not a rule like this for flexible conduit fittings? Is it only because we normally pull a lot less conductor through a flexible conduit fitting than we do through a conduit body? If that is the answer, where is the restiction on how much conductor we are permitted to pull through the flexible conduit fitting?

Same question applies to one of these:
Crouse Hinds EL

While the pictured male version only comes in ?-1", the female version is available up to 2?" trade size (EL79).

 

[tkb]

Do these angle fittings need to be at the termination point?
I have seen them at the end of the conduit and then the flex to the termination, sometimes with another angle connector.

 

[aramg83]

I guess I can see that it's not quite a code issue. Technically it's neither conduit (most of which have a minimum bending radius of about 4x its nominal diameter), nor a conduit body, which has the requirements of pull boxes for wires #4 or larger, but I am confused, like poster#3, as to how it's been allowed to slip by in the NEC.

Pulling large wire in them would be a nightmare so I'm sure most would balk at using them unless absolutely necessary. I did mention I see them used at termination points where one has more room to physically pull wires out of an enclosure so I guess that's my answer.

Thanks