C-CONDULETS

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mstrlucky74

Senior Member
Location
NJ
I was in Whole Foods today and I say a bank of about (10) 4" conduits that all had C- Condulets right next to each other(same location just about). I was wondering why they used those instead of a pull box. Then the crazy thing is right after that I went into the subway and noticed another bank of conduits, although much smaller, and they had the C- condulets as well. Is this a better option than a PB? Thanks.
 
A better option, well that depends. For the most part C type conduit bodies cannot take the place of a pulling point with large raceways and large conductors. If the conductors are #4 or larger than the conduit body needs to be 8X the conduit size which a standard conduit body isn't. A pull box can present other problems like when you have raceways that require separation and enter the same PB.
 
infinity said:
A better option, well that depends. For the most part C type conduit bodies cannot take the place of a pulling point with large raceways and large conductors. If the conductors are #4 or larger than the conduit body needs to be 8X the conduit size which a standard conduit body isn't. A pull box can present other problems like when you have raceways that require separation and enter the same PB.
Click to expand...


Rob, that 8x multiplier has caused a lot of disagreements :) I can't recall all the dos and don'ts of how, when applying that to a conduit body(not a pull box) there are cases where it can be reduced.I think 314.28(A)(3) is where it all starts but this old mind of mine gets befuddled when trying to cipher verbage and numbers at the same time.Take a look and see what you think.

I think the limiting factor then becomes the opening size versus the conductor bend radius when pulling back in.

dick

dick
 
infinity said:
A better option, well that depends. For the most part C type conduit bodies cannot take the place of a pulling point with large raceways and large conductors. If the conductors are #4 or larger than the conduit body needs to be 8X the conduit size which a standard conduit body isn't. A pull box can present other problems like when you have raceways that require separation and enter the same PB.
Click to expand...

well, since simpull has shown up, a c condulet is a nice self supporting device to reset the 90 bend count.
when i first started pulling with simpull, i was astounded with what you could pull where.
 
dicklaxt said:
Rob, that 8x multiplier has caused a lot of disagreements :) I can't recall all the dos and don'ts of how, when applying that to a conduit body(not a pull box) there are cases where it can be reduced.I think 314.28(A)(3) is where it all starts but this old mind of mine gets befuddled when trying to cipher verbage and numbers at the same time.Take a look and see what you think.

I think the limiting factor then becomes the opening size versus the conductor bend radius when pulling back in.

dick

dick
Click to expand...

Not sure why the 8X requirement would cause disagreements. ;)

Actually the NEC is pretty explicit on the 8X and 6X requirements for conduit bodies. {314.28(A)(1)&(2)} You do get some relief from those requirements if the manufacturer has tested the conduit body and allows the use of larger conductors, their quantity and size limit must be marked on the inside of the conduit body. {314.28(A)(3)} When the conductors are larger than #4 quite often a conduit body cannot be used as a required pull point once you've exceeded 360? in the overall run or 360? between pull points.

314.28 Pull and Junction Boxes and Conduit
Bodies
Boxes and conduit bodies used as pull or junction boxes
shall comply with 314.28(A) through (E).
Exception: Terminal housings supplied with motors shall
comply with the provisions of 430.12.
(A) Minimum Size. For raceways containing conductors
of 4 AWG or larger that are required to be insulated, and for
cables containing conductors of 4 AWG or larger, the mini-
mum dimensions of pull or junction boxes installed in a
raceway or cable run shall comply with (A)(1) through (A)
(3). Where an enclosure dimension is to be calculated based
on the diameter of entering raceways, the diameter shall be
the metric designator (trade size) expressed in the units of
measurement employed.
(1) Straight Pulls. In straight pulls, the length of the box
or conduit body shall not be less than eight times the metric
designator (trade size) of the largest raceway.
(3) Smaller Dimensions. Boxes or conduit bodies of di-
mensions less than those required in 314.28(A)(1) and (A)
(2) shall be permitted for installations of combinations of
conductors that are less than the maximum conduit or tubing
fill (of conduits or tubing being used) permitted by Table 1
of Chapter 9, provided the box or conduit body has been
listed for, and is permanently marked with, the maximum
number and maximum size of conductors permitted.
Click to expand...
 
That 8X multiplier is my point ,,,per 314.28(A)(3),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,#1 smaller dimensions may be allowed.......if and when........#2 fill is less than allowed........when marked.......and listed.......with the number of conductors allowed.


Lets use 4/0 as an example,,,,,,,max fill of a 4" conduit is 11 conductors and lets say we are only going to use 4 and the manufactured had tested.listed and marked the fitting for 6. Then according to 314.28(A)(3) the overall length can be reduced,now reduced by how much is not the question and the answer must be the standard manufactured length of the fitting itself that is listed and marked.


Thats where the disagreement starts,then someone says,"Thats not what that means" and someone else says you are right,"It means this" which is different than the 1st etc etc etc

I'm not confused are you or are we all:):):):) so maybe what the OP author saw was an installation based on the above but where 3,4,5 or 6 conductors was going to be used.The decision to install in that manner had to be based on something.

I'm not disagreeing on the 6 or 8X notations, starting parameters need to be established if rules are to be written and then additional rules can amend,How many times have you heard"You need to be a Philadelphia Lawyer to read and understand that".

dick
 
My thinking is in line with Fulthrotl's. Fore many years the "C" was used to re-start the 360? rule without any thoughts of the 8X rule (I'm not sure when that wording was introduced.
I still see controversy, even here, on the manufacturer's markings. If it says (6) 2/0 XHHW, what if you are pulling THWN ??
Locally the Cs are pretty much accepted regardless of fill if they were installed to "trick" the 360? rule.
 
The sequence notation for boxes,cabinets,enclosures etc in general is L(length) x W(width) x D(depth)

dick
 
augie47 said:
My thinking is in line with Fulthrotl's. Fore many years the "C" was used to re-start the 360? rule without any thoughts of the 8X rule (I'm not sure when that wording was introduced.
I still see controversy, even here, on the manufacturer's markings. If it says (6) 2/0 XHHW, what if you are pulling THWN ??
Locally the Cs are pretty much accepted regardless of fill if they were installed to "trick" the 360? rule.
Click to expand...

yeah, the whole 8X thing is a bit daffy, IMHO. you have a condulet for a specific trade size,
it should be able to carry anything that trade size is allowed to carry. the 8X seems
to be an adaptation of the box rule to keep you from putting the inlet and exit conduit
right next to each other, making pulling impossible.

but a condulet is a listed, manufactured product, hence the design is approved by
the listing agency.

if i actually intend to use a C as a pull point, feeding, i get a piece of gutter instead.
if you use a 2" C as a pull point with the fill above 30%, i bet a cheeseburger you'll
only do it that one time. and possibly not even then.... :happysad:
 
Stupid question time ....

Were "C" bodies ever intended as pull points?

I remember when the only time you saw them was when they held a receptacle, switch, or a bulb socket. Yup, there were devices made that fit in "C" bodies - though when you added the wire and connections, it was a pretty tight fit. I think they even would violate today's "fill" rules.
 
renosteinke said:
Stupid question time ....

Were "C" bodies ever intended as pull points?

I remember when the only time you saw them was when they held a receptacle, switch, or a bulb socket. Yup, there were devices made that fit in "C" bodies - though when you added the wire and connections, it was a pretty tight fit. I think they even would violate today's "fill" rules.
Click to expand...

ok, so we are both old. that hasn't been allowed since the late 50's, i don't think.
i've seen them occasionally in industrial installs, and hoover dam has bunches of
them.

c condulets are approved as a pull point, but common sense says it better be
small gauge stranded wire. my personal limit would be #10, and probably i'd
not do more than 4.

i had to raise dock boxes in a marina, and extend the feeders, and i hypressed
#2 on the existing feeders, used cold shrink tube on them, and then slipped
the C over them.

i also did a sample, and took it into the building department for a discussion
with the chief electrical inspector before i even pulled the permit. he was ok with it.
 
Fulthrotl said:
yeah, the whole 8X thing is a bit daffy, IMHO. you have a condulet for a specific trade size,
it should be able to carry anything that trade size is allowed to carry. the 8X seems
to be an adaptation of the box rule to keep you from putting the inlet and exit conduit
right next to each other, making pulling impossible.

but a condulet is a listed, manufactured product, hence the design is approved by
the listing agency.

if i actually intend to use a C as a pull point, feeding, i get a piece of gutter instead.
if you use a 2" C as a pull point with the fill above 30%, i bet a cheeseburger you'll
only do it that one time. and possibly not even then.... :happysad:
Click to expand...

When you say gutter is that the same/like a trough or pencil box?
 
mstrlucky74 said:
When you say gutter is that the same/like a trough or pencil box?
Click to expand...

Here is an example:

chrislb.jpg
 
dicklaxt said:
That 8X multiplier is my point ,,,per 314.28(A)(3),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,#1 smaller dimensions may be allowed.......if and when........#2 fill is less than allowed........when marked.......and listed.......with the number of conductors allowed.


Lets use 4/0 as an example,,,,,,,max fill of a 4" conduit is 11 conductors and lets say we are only going to use 4 and the manufactured had tested.listed and marked the fitting for 6. Then according to 314.28(A)(3) the overall length can be reduced,now reduced by how much is not the question and the answer must be the standard manufactured length of the fitting itself that is listed and marked.


Thats where the disagreement starts,then someone says,"Thats not what that means" and someone else says you are right,"It means this" which is different than the 1st etc etc etc

I'm not confused are you or are we all:):):):) so maybe what the OP author saw was an installation based on the above but where 3,4,5 or 6 conductors was going to be used.The decision to install in that manner had to be based on something.

I'm not disagreeing on the 6 or 8X notations, starting parameters need to be established if rules are to be written and then additional rules can amend,How many times have you heard"You need to be a Philadelphia Lawyer to read and understand that".

dick
Click to expand...

IMO 314.28(A)(3) is straight forward. If it's marked on the inside of the conduit body you can use it otherwise you're violating either the 6X or 8X rule.

Fulthrotl said:
yeah, the whole 8X thing is a bit daffy, IMHO. you have a condulet for a specific trade size,
it should be able to carry anything that trade size is allowed to carry.
Click to expand...

Maybe it should be (it would be required to be bigger) but in a real world application it isn't. I can put 3-500 kcmil Cu conductors in a 2.5" EMT. I would challenge anyone to pull out and re-feed those conductors into a standard 2.5" C conduit body without destroying the conductors or having to pounding them in with a hammer. :happyno:
 
Thats why I said there is a lot of disagreement spawned off of this article,just as you site an absolute condition that will not work I'll bet I can find one other that does,well maybe:):):):):):):)

dick
 
dicklaxt said:
Thats why I said there is a lot of disagreement spawned off of this article,just as you site an absolute condition that will not work I'll bet I can find one other that does,well maybe:):):):):):):)

dick
Click to expand...

;)
This section could use some work. In the example I provided lets say that the 2.5" C conduit body says MAX. 3-300 XHHW conductors, can I pull in 4 #4/0's?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top