- Location
- Massachusetts
Do as we say not as we do.
- Thread starter iwire
- Start date
- Status
Carultch
Senior Member
- Location
- Massachusetts
I'm not understanding the exact problem. How is it a 110.3 violation?
Is this an issue of NPSM male threads being connected to NPT female threads?
Is this an issue of LFNC being sold as part of a family of PVC fittings? Possibly leading to use in environments where LFNC would not be allowed?
Home Depot's website says it is "ETL and UL listed for safety".
JFletcher
Senior Member
- Location
- Williamsburg, VA
If you made it yourself, would you spend more money?
No 110.3 violation from me. You may pass go, and collect $200.
ptonsparky
Tom
- Occupation
- EC - retired
Violation or not, I can't think of a place I would use them. After a year or two in the sun carflex isn't all that flexible, the gaskets will be rotted away and if I bury, sch 40 is easy enough to bend.
I haven't seen them pushed at any of my supply houses. For DIYers only.
I haven't seen them pushed at any of my supply houses. For DIYers only.
romex jockey
Senior Member
- Location
- Vermont
- Occupation
- electrician
110.3B simply means usage according to listing.....
~RJ~
~RJ~
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
Exactly, one can use all the same components to build a similar thing and still be within the listing of those components. This just happens to be an assembly that is listed as is.
How is it any different then using a rigid (PVC or metallic) raceway and short section of flex for various reasons? Maybe where there is slight movement between components and flexibility is required. Most of us wouldn't use this where no flexibility is needed, but it would be code legal whether field made or by purchasing this assembly.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
The difference is the flex elbow is listed. I bet most inspectors would accept a setup that you put together with 2 carflex connectors and threaded couplings
- Location
- Massachusetts
Exactly
Most? In my area for sure. But that still leaves a great many that would have a problem with it.
I make up my own changeovers all the time but on these forums we see the same questions come up time and again about using fittings in ways not directly intended for.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
What is not being for what it is intended for - even if you build your own "flex coupling"?
The flex connector made to connect to the flex, and the female PVC adapter is made to accept a male thread on one end and be cemented to PVC conduit on the other end the last I knew. I don't think we run into the straight vs tapered thread issues with these fittings like you can run into with metal raceway fittings, and certainly not how it relates to grounding and bonding abilities.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Bob,
Do you have the UL "E" number for the "listed assembly"?
Do you have the UL "E" number for the "listed assembly"?
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
I'm not Bob, but here's the product page:
http://www.tnb.com/ps/fulltilt/index.cgi?part=UAFAE
It lists UL file number E 171248.
Cheers, Wayne
wwhitney
Senior Member
- Location
- Berkeley, CA
- Occupation
- Retired
PS It is listed under QQYZ "Wiring Assemblies." The first sentence of the guideinfo is "This category covers prefabricated wiring systems comprised of certified electrical components that could be field assembled and inspected by an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), but are assembled in the factory prior to field installation."
Cheers, Wayne
- Location
- Massachusetts
Thanks, I went looking for it online and was striking out.
gadfly56
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
Right there is the money quote. A field assembly would be just as acceptable and NOT a violation.
- Location
- Massachusetts
As with all listed products that decision would be an AHJ one.
- Location
- Massachusetts
It seems I may be misunderstood.
My position is it should not a be violation of any kind.
The reality is that on these forums we hear of electricians being shot down for this very type of thing.
My position is it should not a be violation of any kind.
The reality is that on these forums we hear of electricians being shot down for this very type of thing.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
We hear of a lot of things being shot down that just don't make sense to many. Inspectors come in smart versions as well as not so smart versions just like electricians do
Carultch
Senior Member
- Location
- Massachusetts
Can you explain what the actual problem is? And is it an issue with just not complying with the letter of the code, or a real life physical consequence?
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
That is because no male connector has ever been evaluated for use with female threads. Some AHJs see that as a use outside the listing and a 110.3(B) violation.
It is something I have done thousands of times. I would bet a very small percentage of the LFMC connectors that I have installed have been used in the way that they have been evaluated for...that is with lock nuts.
ggunn
PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Occupation
- Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
- Status