ohmhead
Senior Member
- Location
- ORLANDO FLA
Well thanks Roger , dont take me the wrong way i do listen to my wife sometimes , i did learn a lot it was fun cant wait for the next debate .take care Roger
condulet bodies
- Thread starter stonecold
- Start date
- Status
iaov
Senior Member
- Location
- Rhinelander WI
IMO drilling a hole is probably a violation in the most technical sense. Does it matter?? Drilling a hole in a conduit body has about .00001% chance of ever causing a problem... Bless me Moderators for I have sinned...I have put holes in conduit bodies too.
weressl
Esteemed Member
..and energized it. Then you drill......:smile:
weressl
Esteemed Member
Condulet bodies designed to be supported by the conduit itself.
Drainage is to be provided in certain cases, yet it is not necessary to drill a hole into a conduit body as drain fittings are available for this purpose.
In any case the drilling of the condulet would put the UL listing in limbo and only a UL field inspection would/could resinstate that. Even though it may seem that that UL is OK with the AHJ to determine that, but that reversal is only one legal case away from being withdrawn. (Just think about drilling an XP fitting or body.)
- Location
- Massachusetts
Of course, we all have specs to follow. But what do the specs you follow have to do with the rest of us? :smile:
If they laugh at your knowledge of the white book (I doubt they would) then they are fools. The white book is one of the primary references that inspectors use to determine the suitability of equipment for a particular installation.
Many here would say the White book is the 'other half' of the code book.
If they laugh about drilling the hole thats fine, they get to set the specs, that is normally the job of the engineer. :smile:
- Location
- Logan, Utah
iwire said:
I couldn't agree more.
The White Book has been an invaluable tool for me.
Chris
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
The UL listing only says the product met a specific standard when it was shipped from the factory. The UL listing says nothing about the product actually having been applied or installed correctly; UL leaves that judgment up to the AHJ.
weressl
Esteemed Member
The product is submitted for testing with all the manufacturers literature and instruction and UL does review it and asks for corrections and additions to comply with the listing. The instructions also bear the UL listing and labeling requirements. In case of multiple listing, such as instruments whre the instructions can cover multiple type of listing, the instructions detail how to comply with XP, NEMA 4 or IS requirements.
what about this?
what about this?
I've got a similar question going on in the limited energy section. http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=109480
If, I drill a hole for a custom KO in a fire alarm control panel in which there wasn't a factory stamped KO, does this violate the UL listing?
I was told it does, but I see it EVERYWHERE
what about this?
I've got a similar question going on in the limited energy section. http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=109480
If, I drill a hole for a custom KO in a fire alarm control panel in which there wasn't a factory stamped KO, does this violate the UL listing?
I was told it does, but I see it EVERYWHERE
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
You miss my point. The only person that can judge that the product as been actually been applied correctly is the AHJ. The statement from UL, about modifications, admits their listing, and the instructions it requires, helps with but does not replace AHJ judgment.
steelersman
Senior Member
- Location
- Lake Ridge, VA
I can't see how that would violate the UL listing. If there are no factory KO's then how are you supposed to install any wiring? Nonsense I say!!
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
- Location
- Wisconsin
- Occupation
- PE (Retired) - Power Systems
The UL listing says it left the factory in proper condition. The UL listing is not applicable to the holes that you field cut. It is up to the AHJ to decide if your field cut holes negatively impact the installation/application of equipment. For example: Does UL require all field cut entrys into a UL Type 1/3R/4/12 enclosure to be made in the same way?
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
We find reference to corroborate this statement in 90.7. Specifically the information in the 2nd paragraph.
"...equipment need not be inspected at the time of installation of the equipment, except to detect alterations or damage, if the equipment has been listed..."
LJSMITH1
Senior Member
- Location
- Stratford, CT
I was resisting the temptation to reply...buuut...:roll:
Conduit Bodies are tested to UL514A, UL514B and/or UL514D. Some of these specifications require the conduit body to pass wet location tests with the specified conduits and cover/gasket installed.
From the UL Listing:
"Boxes and covers intended for use in wet locations as defined by the NEC are marked "Wet Location." Damp location boxes and covers are intended to be so located or equipped as to prevent water from entering or accumulating in the box and are marked "Damp Location." Boxes with threaded conduit hubs will normally prevent water from entering except for condensation within the box or connected conduit.
Box and device cover combinations, and flush device covers that provide protection from the weather only when the cover is closed, are marked "Wet Location Only When Cover Closed" and may be marked "Damp Location.""
Also, markings are used to help determine fill requirements if the body were used as a splice point.
From the UL Listing:
"Conduit bodies that are provided with a volume marking can enclose splices, taps or devices. Conduit bodies that are not provided with a volume marking are covered under Conduit Fittings (DWTT). Conduit bodies Classified for use with specific conduit body covers and conduit body covers Classified for use with specific conduit bodies are covered under Conduit Bodies and Covers Classified for Use with Specified Equipment (QCKW)."
IF the conduit body in question was listed for WET Locations, drilling a weep hole in it would invalidate the UL Listing. Period.
The primary reason is that the conduit body's water resistance has not been tested with that weep hole in place. If the CB was PVC, then a weep hole will certainly not pass the tests, since UL514B specifies submersion in water, and not a spray.
Forget the argument that there is nothing written that tells one they CAN'T drill that hole. That doesn't make sense. Someone would have to think long and hard to come up with every possible modification known to man and then analyze each one to see if the product performance is negatively affected.
Again, ANY field modification to a UL listed product will need to be approved by the AHJ. They have the final call if the modification has been detrimental to the installation (in their opinion). They might not cite NEC code as basis for their decision other than 100.3, and they don't have to. If the contractor insists on pushing the issue, the AHJ may then require a UL field inspection and acceptance letter from UL. This typically costs $$ and takes time (both of these things contractors don't want to give up easily). So, the most realistic option is not to drill the hole in the first place and look for other ways to prevent water from entering the conduit in the first place.
#1 If rain is an issue - Use raintight fittings and FS boxes.
#2 If condensation is an issue - Fill warm end of conduit with approved insulation (foam,etc.) to prevent flow of air.
#3 Use cover gaskets and make sure they are installed correctly and not damaged.
Conduit Bodies are tested to UL514A, UL514B and/or UL514D. Some of these specifications require the conduit body to pass wet location tests with the specified conduits and cover/gasket installed.
From the UL Listing:
"Boxes and covers intended for use in wet locations as defined by the NEC are marked "Wet Location." Damp location boxes and covers are intended to be so located or equipped as to prevent water from entering or accumulating in the box and are marked "Damp Location." Boxes with threaded conduit hubs will normally prevent water from entering except for condensation within the box or connected conduit.
Box and device cover combinations, and flush device covers that provide protection from the weather only when the cover is closed, are marked "Wet Location Only When Cover Closed" and may be marked "Damp Location.""
Also, markings are used to help determine fill requirements if the body were used as a splice point.
From the UL Listing:
"Conduit bodies that are provided with a volume marking can enclose splices, taps or devices. Conduit bodies that are not provided with a volume marking are covered under Conduit Fittings (DWTT). Conduit bodies Classified for use with specific conduit body covers and conduit body covers Classified for use with specific conduit bodies are covered under Conduit Bodies and Covers Classified for Use with Specified Equipment (QCKW)."
IF the conduit body in question was listed for WET Locations, drilling a weep hole in it would invalidate the UL Listing. Period.
The primary reason is that the conduit body's water resistance has not been tested with that weep hole in place. If the CB was PVC, then a weep hole will certainly not pass the tests, since UL514B specifies submersion in water, and not a spray.
Forget the argument that there is nothing written that tells one they CAN'T drill that hole. That doesn't make sense. Someone would have to think long and hard to come up with every possible modification known to man and then analyze each one to see if the product performance is negatively affected.
Again, ANY field modification to a UL listed product will need to be approved by the AHJ. They have the final call if the modification has been detrimental to the installation (in their opinion). They might not cite NEC code as basis for their decision other than 100.3, and they don't have to. If the contractor insists on pushing the issue, the AHJ may then require a UL field inspection and acceptance letter from UL. This typically costs $$ and takes time (both of these things contractors don't want to give up easily). So, the most realistic option is not to drill the hole in the first place and look for other ways to prevent water from entering the conduit in the first place.
#1 If rain is an issue - Use raintight fittings and FS boxes.
#2 If condensation is an issue - Fill warm end of conduit with approved insulation (foam,etc.) to prevent flow of air.
#3 Use cover gaskets and make sure they are installed correctly and not damaged.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Listing aside, I don't see where it makes any difference as you are required to use conductors listed for wet locations if the conduit is installed in a wet location. As far as "raintight" fittings and boxes keeping the water out, that just doesn't happen in the real world. It may under the conditions of the UL testing, but it doesn't out in the field.
Actually, it could be that the boxes and fittings do keep the water out, but they also keep it in, and threaded conduit couplings are not "raintight", hence the drain hole.
Actually, it could be that the boxes and fittings do keep the water out, but they also keep it in, and threaded conduit couplings are not "raintight", hence the drain hole.
glene77is
Senior Member
- Location
- Memphis, TN
That sits right beside buying junction boxes WITH holes in them for mounting,
so that you don't have to drill your own.
But, is the condulet supposed to be gasket sealed?
If yes, then how would drilling holes affect the 'listed' status?
The volume occupied by the bolt head (rounded)
would reduce the available volume for a possible joint.
I suppose we are talking about 'technicalities' here.
After all, if it is mounted securely, and nobody will ever inspect inside,
then the job is done.
Infinity,
Send your Comments please.
Thanks.
Last edited:
glene77is
Senior Member
- Location
- Memphis, TN
Ohm,
Thanks, I side with you.
It is a Conduit Body, no holes allowed.
Comments anyone?
glene77is
Senior Member
- Location
- Memphis, TN
A wireless system of course...
Still requires Power Input lines, so holes required
.
This assumes that mounting tabs are provided, else have to drill them, too.
Comments?
glene77is
Senior Member
- Location
- Memphis, TN
iWire,
I have a good time from tracking down everything you cite.
My NEC is getting rough pages.
But, the intent in usage is different in 225.22.
The question is 'mounting' wherein a bolt-head is inside the condulet.
And Belarge is 'on the nail' about checking with the AHJ.
Our Code Enforcement inspectors are proud of their code skills,
and offer friendly answers.
They never have asked where the projects are! Just give answers.
Comments?
- Status