Conduit for a service

[nickelec]

Overhead service can I use compression fittings for rmc I can't find anything in the code that says no definitively

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[nickelec]

I'm going with no as I believe a compression coupling is not listed for carrying the metallic bond of the conduit

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[jumper]

I'm going with no as I believe a compression coupling is not listed for carrying the metallic bond of the conduit

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

They are listed for bonding but good luck finding a wet location rated one.

 

[nickelec]

Yes that was on my mind to, is that the only thing that would prohibit them on a service

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[tkb]

Is a regular RMC coupling listed for wet locations?

 

[jumper]

Yes that was on my mind to, is that the only thing that would prohibit them on a service

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Yes, gotta watch 230.28(B) for masts though.

Truthfully, there are many masts that use them and somehow pass. See them all over.

It is kind of a fuzzy area. Search earlier threads on the topic.

 

[jumper]

Is a regular RMC coupling listed for wet locations?

Yes, but they usually leak.

http://www.cooperindustries.com/con...l-products/catalog-pdfs/conduit-couplings.pdf

 

[LarryFine]

I wouldn't trust one to resist the horizontal loading, aka bending moment.

 

[jumper]

I wouldn't trust one to resist the horizontal loading, aka bending moment.

All the ones I have seen are between the meter base and a strap. Never above.

 

[LarryFine]

All the ones I have seen are between the meter base and a strap. Never above.

That's what

Yes, gotta watch 230.28(B) for masts though.

is referring to.

 

[jumper]

That's whatis referring to.

Yep, but I do not see many masts with the service conductors attached to it and not many masts through the roof period. Maybe I just do not pay much attention.

I personally have never attached service conductors to a mast. Always a separate point, eye bolt or such.

 

[LarryFine]

Sometimes, a 1-story bungalow with a hip roof for example, there is no attachment point high enough, then the supporting mast is a must.

 

[jumper]

Sometimes, a 1-story bungalow with a hip roof for example, there is no attachment point high enough, then the supporting mast is a must.

Yes of course, but I have never did one of those or similar with a mast.

Been lucky with getting people to agree to laterals.

Dominion was not terribly expensive or had a guy who would trench and back fill for $1.50 a foot plus service charge.

 

[nickelec]

Just like to point out that in my neck of the woods we never used the mast as support for the lateral there's always a point of attachment at the building

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[kwired]

Just like to point out that in my neck of the woods we never used the mast as support for the lateral there's always a point of attachment at the building

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If building has no natural place to put a point of attachment that gives proper clearance for the drop - you either need to make a point of attachment, use a through the roof type mast as the point of attachment, or go underground.

 

[jumper]

Just like to point out that in my neck of the woods we never used the mast as support for the lateral there's always a point of attachment at the building

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Understood. Regarding such an install with that scenario:

The truth is that a threadless RMC compression coupling is not going to leak any worse than a standard coupling.

They are listed for bonding, just none are technically listed for wet locations, found one the other day that was CSA listed for Canada though.

There is one used in the service mast on the very house I am in at the moment and many others nearby. SF, CA. All have separate points of attachment for overhead POCO wires.

Ask inspector, who knows.