correct installation of EMT connectors

Status
Not open for further replies.
moo2380 said:
That makes absolute sense, even though the code allows for this installation (i.e. skewed EMT connectors) “tight”.
Click to expand...

Look this has happened to most of us I imagine (the locknut sitting on a lip) but I have to ask, what code section allows skewed connectors.

The connectors are listed, that means we have to install them per 110.3(B), if the listing agency has not tested them in the way we install them the inspector is well within his authority to turn it down,

Although he would have to produce from the MFG the listing of the connector which would have to indicate the proper installation of the connector as it’s designed.
Click to expand...

I would say it is up to you to prove they are compliant the way they are.
 
Last edited:
Pierre C Belarge said:
Why is that so?


Think "effective ground fault current path" as per 250.4(A)(5)
Click to expand...

I have done this some where one end of the conduit has grd. lock nuts or grd. bushings. May be it was on a service when the neutral is grounding the boxes.
Or it is if you have a wire equipment ground. Then you are only grounding the conduit.
Their was a picture of this in one of those hand books. Or perhaps study guides.
 
Once again I have to agree with Bob and the masses, This can happen due to the 90's being a 92 or an 88. BUt in either case the connectors should sit flat and make contact all around the fitting, solid contact and more contact surface area is important to a good connection. I think as Bob pointed out use a bond bushing or a bonding wedge may work these would not require disconnecting all the conductors.
 
moo2380 said:
That makes absolute sense, even though the code allows for this installation (i.e. skewed EMT connectors) ?tight?.

However if the Inspector wanted to push the issue he probably could call it a violation of 110.3 incorrect installation according to the listing and labeling..?? Although he would have to produce from the MFG the listing of the connector which would have to indicate the proper installation of the connector as it?s designed.

I?m probably going to lose this one, but since the explanation of the test criteria surrounding UL 514B this makes sense.
Click to expand...

The listing will only show that the fitting is listed to UL514B, any size or use restrictions, and nothing else. The inspector would have to consult UL514B (if they own a copy), or contact the manufacturer and ask them to interpret the install and provide guidance.

Unfortunately, the UL White Book is the closest that you can get to a "fitting install instruction" aside from any specific documentation available from the manufacturer. So many installers rely on 'common sense' to figure out how to use fittings, or use them in the manner for which they were designed and listed. For example, not many people know that a locknut should be tightened hand-tight + 1/4 turn. Most just bash the crap out of them with a screwdriver and hammer until they stop rotating. Also, some fittings are used in applications in which they are not listed for - like a die cast strap fitting listed for NM, but for years, many people use them for MC/AC cable as well.

At any rate, I think this particular situation could speak volumes as to the workmanship quality, even though there may be a legitimate fix to make the inspector, NEC and UL happy...
 
Any chance loosening the connector set-screws enough to let the connector tilt on the pipe, but align with the panel better, tighten the locknut more, then re-tighten the set-screws? It's hard to know the amount of tilt without seeing it.
 
The EMTs are part of a 1,200 amp feeder, likely there are three 4" EMTs , loosening the set screws will not gain much. (IMO)
 
moo2380 said:
The conduit run is for a 1200A feeder circuit, I under bent the 90 and tightened down on the locknut but cabinet wouldn?t conform to the EMT connector, big money to change now. My thoughts are that as long as the EMT connectors locknut was in contact with a couple of the ?tabs? from the locknut and the it?s tight, than it would be ok. The Inspector couldn?t support his claim with a ?listing? of the product which might defend his position on the ?correct? installation, so then as long as the connector is ?tight? then why wouldn?t it be able to clear a fault. I think that maybe the Inspector might be a little ?Nit Picky?, or maybe I missed something to be fair, I?m not sure.?

As far as testing the equipment, is there a standard that dictates an EMT connectors grounding performance when installed with partial surface contact or full surface contact as long as the contact is "tight"?
Click to expand...

Unless you can hit the 90 in a very strategic spot with a piece of 4x4 and a sledge hammer you might be really screwed.
Is it possible to adjust the EMT far enough away from the cabinet to increase the angle of the dangle?
 
Mechanical Execution of Work

Mechanical Execution of Work

The issue isn't correct installation of EMT connectors, if the conduit was bent properly the lock nut would be seated correctly.

Article: 110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work

Electrical equipment shall be installed in a Neat and Work- Manlike manner.

Since you didn't provide any pictures, and the electrical inspector didn't approve the installation, the conduit in question must look shoddy at best.

Since you are working with larger conduit and wire, the time to correct the problem was before you pulled the wire.

Next time take some PRIDE in your installation!
 
Wire_nutz said:
Article: 110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work

Electrical equipment shall be installed in a Neat and Work- Manlike manner.!
Click to expand...

The NEC style manual says Neat and Workmanlike is vague and possibly unenforceable.

"Neat and Workmanlike" should be removed from what is a safety code.
 
Crooked Connectors

Crooked Connectors

I would never allow this type of installation to happen, but to easily fix it, use a steel punch around the connectors and hammer the cabinet down outside and up inside ( doing both will keep it from looking to bad ) If you are limited on space, use an air impact chisel.
Do Not Let This Happen Again!!!
 
a- try the loosening the connector and seeing if it will straighten out level for you.

b- adjust the rack it's coming around on if you can do it without screwing everything else up.

c- recheck everything and if you are 100% sure that it is that particular bend that is the one that is off, suck it up and redo it like a man.
 
Talk to the inspector and explain calmly and politely about the extensive amount of work involved and the associated costs of redoing the poorly bent conduit. Then admit your wrong to him and ask if he will allow you to use bonding locknuts with the wire sized according to 250.66 if it's the service entrance conductors or 250.122 if it's an equipment ground.

Admitting your fault and asking for his "help" in fixing your screw up might just get you out of this mess with the least amount of physical work and costs.

Sometimes we must swallow our pride and eat some crow
 
Wire_nutz said:
The issue isn't correct installation of EMT connectors, if the conduit was bent properly the lock nut would be seated correctly.

Article: 110.12 Mechanical Execution of Work

Electrical equipment shall be installed in a Neat and Work- Manlike manner.

Since you didn't provide any pictures, and the electrical inspector didn't approve the installation, the conduit in question must look shoddy at best.

Since you are working with larger conduit and wire, the time to correct the problem was before you pulled the wire.

Next time take some PRIDE in your installation!
Click to expand...
hey. Relax. It's not the end of the world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
luckyshadow said:
Talk to the inspector and explain calmly and politely about the extensive amount of work involved and the associated costs of redoing the poorly bent conduit. Then admit your wrong to him and ask if he will allow you to use bonding locknuts with the wire sized according to 250.66 if it's the service entrance conductors or 250.122 if it's an equipment ground.

Admitting your fault and asking for his "help" in fixing your screw up might just get you out of this mess with the least amount of physical work and costs.

Sometimes we must swallow our pride and eat some crow
Click to expand...



Laying blame shouls not be the issue. If the inspector is looking to make people grovel, than there are other issues at hand.

Discussing ways to resolve this that are cost effective is how this could be done. Remember, it is not for inspectors to be engineers.

There many on this site that think the inspector should only provide section numbers and not help with the "engineering" of the fix, that would be fine as well.
 
"Laying blame shouls not be the issue. If the inspector is looking to make people grovel, than there are other issues at hand.

Discussing ways to resolve this that are cost effective is how this could be done. Remember, it is not for inspectors to be engineers.

There many on this site that think the inspector should only provide section numbers and not help with the "engineering" of the fix, that would be fine as well. "

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't saying the inspector was looking for him to grovel or for him to lay blame.
What I was leading to was that he should admit to the inspector that he ( the inspector) is correct in his findings and that there can be a way to make this installation acceptable by possibly using bonding locknuts/ bonding bushings.
Be up front and non-confrontational. Don't argue that it is good the way it is , but try to come to a compromise that both sides can agree on with the least amount of hassle(work).

Basically you and I are saying the same thing but in different ways. I should have been written my post more clearly.
 
I am facing the same situation here at the project I am inspecting with the electrical sub-contractor. This contractor has installed a large pull box and the installation of the conduits in the bottom was installed correctly by one crew but the crew who installed the conduits in the top cut the holes too close togeather and they have the locknuts installed backwards on many conduits and overlapping each other. I have instructed them to re-do all connectors where the locknuts over lap and the connectors where the locknuts do not seat completely around the 360 of the locknut. This is a workmanship issue but agree that is not a reason to turn this down. My primary reason is effective ground fault path. Sometimes we all get in a hurry to complete or get the job done but not taking the time to fix this type of problem just doen not make sense.
 
If you were pulling in feeders....why not pull in a ground wire?......I say "Pull a green with everything"...makes life a little easier and you have a good path back for ground fault rather than relying on the conduit which is clearly liable to human error
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top