Bending PVC

Status
Not open for further replies.
K8MHZ said:
So long as the conduit is not damaged, the means is irrelevant.

The addition of the language adding the 'equipment shall be identified for the purpose' is not providing any additional protection from damage. It's also so vague that it's nearly impossible to define.

I have used Iwire's board and screw method. It works great. I have used heat guns. They work great. In a pinch, I have used torches. Not so great, but if there is no hurry, good bends can be made with them.

Years ago, I was challeged by an inspector to heat PVC with a torch enough to bend without damaging it. I did it as he watched. Patiently. :D His response was 'good job'. We got our sticker and a lecture about making sure we didn't char the conduit if we used a torch.

'Identified' simply means it looks like it will work. Stupid rule.
Click to expand...

So you either cannot or simply refuse to answer the question.

That's fine. :D
 
K8MHZ said:
He already has that process.

"Bends shall be made so the conduit will not be damaged and the internal diameter of the conduit will not be effectively reduced."
Click to expand...

Yet the fact remains that there is another section to be complied with even though you feel it is stupid. :)
 
iwire said:
So you either cannot or simply refuse to answer the question.

That's fine. :D
Click to expand...

I guess I was trying to answer by example.

'Identified' is so vague that it's nearly meaningless. Also, after the fact of making undamaged bends, wouldn't the means now be obviously 'suitable for the purpose'?

'Identified' means if it works it's OK, if it doesn't it's not OK.
 
K8MHZ said:
Yet the fact remains that you have admitted not complying with that section. Do you feel it's stupid too?
Click to expand...

If you want to think a jig to hold the bent pipe as it cools is a violtion I am good with that. It would be an AHJ call. They could feel as you do and no amount of stomping my feet about it could change that.

No I do not think it is stupid rule.

I think it is a good, if poorly written section for the reasons mgookin provided above.
 
iwire said:
If you want to think a jig to hold the bent pipe as it cools is a violtion I am good with that. It would be an AHJ call. They could feel as you do and no amount of stomping my feet about it could change that.

No I do not think it is stupid rule.

I think it is a good, if poorly written section for the reasons mgookin provided above.
Click to expand...

If the AHJ felt as I did, He wouldn't think twice about the improvised technique you were using if the conduit wasn't damaged.

mgookin mentioned 'destroyed conduit being installed'. That is in direct violation of the first sentence. No need to gig the installer for violating the second. What if the conduit was destroyed with a factory type 'hot dog cooker' from being left in too long?

I think the first sentence is a good rule and so long as it is followed, there is nothing added by the second but confusion.
 
K8MHZ said:
If the AHJ felt as I did, He wouldn't think twice about the improvised technique you were using if the conduit wasn't damaged.

mgookin mentioned 'destroyed conduit being installed'. That is in direct violation of the first sentence. No need to gig the installer for violating the second. What if the conduit was destroyed with a factory type 'hot dog cooker' from being left in too long?

I think the first sentence is a good rule and so long as it is followed, there is nothing added by the second but confusion.
Click to expand...

Well regardless of either of our opinions it's up to the AHJ or inspector and it could certainly go either way.
 
From article 100

Identified (as applied to equipment). Recognizable as suitable for the specific purpose, function, use, environment, application, etc., where described in a particular Code requirement.



FPN: Suitability of equipment for a specific purpose, environment, or application may be determined by a qualified testing laboratory, inspection agency, or other organization concerned with product evaluation. Such identification may include labeling or listing. (See definitions of Labeled and Listed.)
Click to expand...
 
Is a minor scorch on the pipe enough to call it completely useless?

I've seen many PVC pipes not scorched at install that still get some sunburn over time when installed outdoors.

I have scorched PVC before with 'identified' hot boxes or heater blankets as well, maybe scorching is alright as long as it is done by an identified device;)
 
iwire said:
From article 100
Click to expand...

I have read that many times.

Identified = Recognizable as suitable for a specific purpose.

Suitable, from Merriam-Webster:

Merriam-Webster

Full Definition of suitable

1 (now obsolete) : similar, matching

2 a : adapted to a use or purpose <suitable for kitchen use>
b : satisfying propriety : proper <suitable dress>
c : able, qualified <a suitable candidate for the job>

The FPN is not enforceable, and on top of that, is ambiguous by the use of the word 'may'. The FPN is simply stating some obvious examples. It does not mention any means that would not be allowed. Remember, the code is permissive.

Edit: I made the word adapted bold to illustrate my point.
 
Last edited:
kwired said:
Is a minor scorch on the pipe enough to call it completely useless?
Click to expand...

The code does not address 'useless'. It addresses 'damaged'. So, if compliance is desired, the conduit must not be damaged, even though it may be totally useful.


I've seen many PVC pipes not scorched at install that still get some sunburn over time when installed outdoors.
Click to expand...

I have never seen that, but the section we are talking about involves the making of field bends, not what happens after installation.

I have scorched PVC before with 'identified' hot boxes or heater blankets as well, maybe scorching is alright as long as it is done by an identified device;)
Click to expand...

If it's scorched, it's damaged. Damage is not allowed. Even getting the conduit hot enough to collapse at the bend, scorched or not, is a violation. Not getting it hot enough causing it to kink would also be damage and it doesn't matter what was used to do it. 'Identified' and it's FPN is not a means for acceptance of damage.
 
K8MHZ said:
I have read that many times.

Identified = Recognizable as suitable for a specific purpose.

Suitable, from Merriam-Webster:

Merriam-Webster

Full Definition of suitable

1 (now obsolete) : similar, matching

2 a : adapted to a use or purpose <suitable for kitchen use>
b : satisfying propriety : proper <suitable dress>
c : able, qualified <a suitable candidate for the job>

The FPN is not enforceable, and on top of that, is ambiguous by the use of the word 'may'. The FPN is simply stating some obvious examples. It does not mention any means that would not be allowed. Remember, the code is permissive.
Click to expand...

I know FPNs are not inforcable. Did not say they were.

Are you aware that when there is an article 100 definition that is the one we are required to use. No other definition can be used or applied.
 
iwire said:
I know FPNs are not inforcable. Did not say they were.

Are you aware that when there is an article 100 definition that is the one we are required to use. No other definition can be used or applied.
Click to expand...

So words in the English language that are not defined in article 100 can't be defined by any other means?

Obviously, that is not so. 'Suitable' is not defined in article 100. So, if I want to know what the NEC means by 'suitable' what should I do?

A) Look up the word in a good dictionary.
B) Make up my own definition
C) Let Iwire make up a definition
D) Make a thread with a poll and go with the percentages
 
K8MHZ said:
So words in the English language that are not defined in article 100 can't be defined by any other means?

Obviously, that is not so. 'Suitable' is not defined in article 100. So, if I want to know what the NEC means by 'suitable' what should I do?

A) Look up the word in a good dictionary.
B) Make up my own definition
C) Let Iwire make up a definition
D) Make a thread with a poll and go with the percentages
Click to expand...
do all four and then pick which one you like best afterward:)
 
K8MHZ said:
So words in the English language that are not defined in article 100 can't be defined by any other means?

Obviously, that is not so. 'Suitable' is not defined in article 100. So, if I want to know what the NEC means by 'suitable' what should I do?

A) Look up the word in a good dictionary.
B) Make up my own definition
C) Let Iwire make up a definition
D) Make a thread with a poll and go with the percentages
Click to expand...

The word in question is 'identified' and it is defined in article 100

Words that are not defined in the NEC itself are to use the dictionary indicated in the NFPAs manual of style. I am sorry I don't recall which they point to. It may be the one you used.
 
K8MHZ said:
The code does not address 'useless'. It addresses 'damaged'. So, if compliance is desired, the conduit must not be damaged, even though it may be totally useful.




I have never seen that, but the section we are talking about involves the making of field bends, not what happens after installation.



If it's scorched, it's damaged. Damage is not allowed. Even getting the conduit hot enough to collapse at the bend, scorched or not, is a violation. Not getting it hot enough causing it to kink would also be damage and it doesn't matter what was used to do it. 'Identified' and it's FPN is not a means for acceptance of damage.
Click to expand...
I see. With that approach a piece with a surface scratch, field made ink marks for reference for bending, or even adhesive residue from the tape used to bundle pieces when it was manufactured could be considered damage.
 
iwire said:
The word in question is 'identified' and it is defined in article 100

Words that are not defined are to use the dictionary indicated in the NFPAs manual of style. I am sorry I don't recall which they point to. It may be the one you used.
Click to expand...

Well, I picked Merriam-Webster because it's accepted pretty much everywhere. If you find out that the manual refers to a different dictionary, say Oxfords, let me know if you would. The on line Oxford isn't all that great. The hard copy Oxford Unabridged Dictionary is about a foot thick. I used to look stuff up in one. It was so big, it never left it's place, a pedestal in the library. You looked stuff up in it where it was sitting. It was too big to even be moved to a desk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top