EMT to Liquidtite

[Pierre C Belarge]

The strongest UL statement on this was just 'they have not been investigated for that purpose' which to me does not mean it is a violation. It just means the AHJ has to approve it per 110.2.

I know you did not mean the inspector has to approve it. :smile:


But you are correct in saying the responsibility of passing the inspection for certain installations will fall on the shoulders of the inspector. Maybe it is now easier to understand that it takes more "convincing" of the inspector sometimes when there is no 3rd party laboratory to fall back on.

BTW: prior to being an inspector I did not think of the kind of responsibility an inspector has...I did think of being creative and trying to make the installation work.

 

[iwire]

I know you did not mean the inspector has to approve it. :smile:

Well yes I did, but not in the way your reading it.:smile:

I don't mean the AHJ has no choice but to approve it.

What I meant is an AHJ can approve it and then it is OK.

But you are correct in saying the responsibility of passing the inspection for certain installations will fall on the shoulders of the inspector. Maybe it is now easier to understand that it takes more "convincing" of the inspector sometimes when there is no 3rd party laboratory to fall back on.

Sure they should fall back on third parties for complicated or tough issues. When they simply fail to use their own judgment and common senses on the minutia of our trade then they should probably find a new line of work.

No guts, no glory.

BTW: prior to being an inspector I did not think of the kind of responsibility an inspector has...

I am surprised you could not see that from the start.

Both ECs and EIs have great responsibilities. You have mentioned many times that you have gone to court over electrical issues. Who was on the hot seat in those cases the majority of the time ...... it was not the EI.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

I am surprised you could not see that from the start.

Both ECs and EIs have great responsibilities. You have mentioned many times that you have gone to court over electrical issues. Who was on the hot seat in those cases the majority of the time ...... it was not the EI.

When I worked as an employee, I did not care as much, when I worked as a contractor, I was way too busy thinking of the business.

When the shoe is on the other foot, and one experiences what the "other shoe" goes through, then it is easier to understand.

I wonder how many meetings have you witnessed where either a politician or the building commissioner is "discussing" a particular job with an inspector? :wink:

 

[jrannis]

I went through having some assemblies approved by UL. They were basiclly interested in seeing that all of the items we used were UL listed/approved and were not there to apply the NEC.
We know of course, with some common sense, we can make almost any type of "change over" with what we can put together.

 

[iwire]

I wonder how many meetings have you witnessed where either a politician or the building commissioner is "discussing" a particular job with an inspector? :wink:

None.

Did you not understand that politics and favoritism are a real force in life?

 

[LJSMITH1]

LJSMITH1

The discussion is not about misapplying a fitting (i.e. FMC into a LQ fitting), it is about fittings and rigid couplings.

Does the listing of a fitting allow it to be threaded into a:
cast hub?
rigid coupling?
conduit body?

For example, specific to this discussion: is it allowable to install an EMT or FMC connector into a threaded rigid coupling?

I was merely using that as an example. It really boils down to using a fitting for a purpose/application for which it was intended, designed, or specified. The listing should be specific about what kinds of conduit the fitting is designed for. If the manufacturer does not state the use you are attempting, it probably has not been tested for it, therefore not listed.

Another example:
If you have a Conduit Body listed for use with RIGID conduit, and you thread a standard, listed (locknut type) setscrew or compression connector into the conduit body, you have not used the conduit body OR the connectors in a manner for which they are listed. The main issue is the threads - the connector has a straight thread, while the conduit body has a tapered thread. Could it be listed if it were tested, possibly.

I am not trying to split hairs here, I am just trying to illustrate that not testing for a specific application does not necessarily mean that the application is not acceptable per standard. However, it could also mean that it may fail the standard if tested. Bottom line is that all bets are off if a fitting is used out of a scope for which it is officially listed. If the AHJ approves it, then you are ok for the moment. However, the chance is that another AHJ may not approve the same thing just because they do not have the means to test the application...

I hope I am not beating this subject too much! :smile: I am just trying to relay my perspective on this issue.

 

[LJSMITH1]

LJSMITH1

The discussion is not about misapplying a fitting (i.e. FMC into a LQ fitting), it is about fittings and rigid couplings.

Does the listing of a fitting allow it to be threaded into a:
cast hub?
rigid coupling?
conduit body?

For example, specific to this discussion: is it allowable to install an EMT or FMC connector into a threaded rigid coupling?

To answer your question, NO. Unless the connector is specifically listed for such use. The standard threads are different for fittings supplied with locknuts than a rigid conduit thread. It should be very difficult to install a male straight thread into a tapered female thread - sometimes you only get 1/2 to 1 turn in before it jams. Depending on some manufacturer's individual thread specifications, it may look like it works, but it really is not right from a design standpoint.

 

[LJSMITH1]

Then technically, according to these requirements you couldn't use one in a condulet because the locknut, if used, likely wouldn't go on hand tight plus 1/4 turn.

Right. If the condulet is listed for use with RIGID and not a standard connector.

The "handtight plus 1/4 turn" specification is for locknuts only. It does not relate to complete fittings.

 

[jwelectric]

410.15(B) (2) Where raceway risers or cable is not installed within the pole, a threaded fitting or nipple shall be brazed, welded, or attached to the pole opposite the handhole for the supply connection.

I am installing lighting heads and designing the pole myself using the above code section for handhole placement.

The underground circuit will be brought out of the ground with LFNC and threading the LFNC fitting into the nipple outlined above.

Which type of fitting should be used for the pole?
A) a water pipe nipple
B) a PVC nipple
C) a RMC or IMC nipple
D) Duct tape


I can?t find anything on page 100 of the 2007 UL White Book that would disallow the use of a RMC coupling for any type of installation.

Should a code enforcement official make the statement that the RMC fitting has not been listed for that type of installation I would simply ask them to show me a copy of the standard that he is making his/her decision.

Could someone please post information to show where a NRTL has said that the use of a RMC fitting is disallowed for transition from one type of raceway to another?

 

[LJSMITH1]

410.15(B) (2) Where raceway risers or cable is not installed within the pole, a threaded fitting or nipple shall be brazed, welded, or attached to the pole opposite the handhole for the supply connection.

I am installing lighting heads and designing the pole myself using the above code section for handhole placement.

The underground circuit will be brought out of the ground with LFNC and threading the LFNC fitting into the nipple outlined above.

Which type of fitting should be used for the pole?
A) a water pipe nipple
B) a PVC nipple
C) a RMC or IMC nipple
D) Duct tape


I can?t find anything on page 100 of the 2007 UL White Book that would disallow the use of a RMC coupling for any type of installation.

Should a code enforcement official make the statement that the RMC fitting has not been listed for that type of installation I would simply ask them to show me a copy of the standard that he is making his/her decision.

Could someone please post information to show where a NRTL has said that the use of a RMC fitting is disallowed for transition from one type of raceway to another?

This is a good example of an application that is unusual but not unheard of.

The LFNC fitting probably has a straight thread, and it is typically used with a locknut. However, it should fully thread into a standard RMC coupler since those also have straight threads. The only issue may be that it may not be watertight without some kind of sealant. Since you are not using the conduit as an EGC, you don't need to worry about bonding. So, seal it with teflon tape and call it a day.

NRTL's do not 'allow or disallow' specific applications, they merely test to an established standard. The standard defines the application and the tests needed to verify a product meets the standard. I don't believe that UL or anyone else has written a standard that covers every single variation or combination of uses for a specific product. However, the standards that they do create do have 90% or more of the 'probable' applications covered.

Manufacturers play an important role in getting UL to add product categories or enhance product testing in UL standards. I am sure that enough demand existed for a particular application of a product, there would be some official testing to validate products to be able to meet that standard.

The inspector could make a case that when they check a particular RMC fitting Mfr's UL listing, it only specifies for use with RIGID conduit (i.e. RIGID is the only conduit type listed), and will not have NM, LFNC, FMC, etc. included. If it is not specifically indicated for particular use within a UL Listing, it is not UL approved for that use. One can not assume that just because a particular application (combination) is not addressed, it must be ok, and/or UL Listed/Approved.

These types of applications require the inspector to make a judgement call that they feel comfortable with. However, just because they cannot come up with an official reason why you can't, they also may not know why you can.

 

[jwelectric]

This is a good example of an application that is unusual but not unheard of.

The LFNC fitting probably has a straight thread, and it is typically used with a locknut. However, it should fully thread into a standard RMC coupler since those also have straight threads.

This is not what you are saying in this post.

To answer your question, NO. Unless the connector is specifically listed for such use. The standard threads are different for fittings supplied with locknuts than a rigid conduit thread. It should be very difficult to install a male straight thread into a tapered female thread - sometimes you only get 1/2 to 1 turn in before it jams. Depending on some manufacturer's individual thread specifications, it may look like it works, but it really is not right from a design standpoint.

There is a couple of places in the code such as 314.23 where the codes requires a threaded fitting to be wrenchtightbut there is no mention to the number of threads that are to be engaged.
There are a couple of places where the number of threads is required like 500.8(D) and the exception.
In the original post what section would require that there be any certain amount of threads engaged? Which UL Standard would require a certain number of threads to be engaged?
As pointed out in 250.90 the purpose of making the connection wrenchtight is to ensure continuity for grounding purposes only. The number of threads outlined in 500 is to give the escaping gases in the event of an explosion time to cool.

Then I am not sure if I understand just what point you are trying to make here.

The only issue may be that it may not be watertight without some kind of sealant. Since you are not using the conduit as an EGC, you don't need to worry about bonding. So, seal it with teflon tape and call it a day.

Why would I care if it is water tight or not? As long as the conductors met the requirement for being underground it wouldn?t matter if it was water tight or not would it?

These types of applications require the inspector to make a judgement call that they feel comfortable with. However, just because they cannot come up with an official reason why you can't, they also may not know why you can.

As with any other installation the code official has the requirement to show me in writing why an installation is not allowed, his or her judgment matters little to me.
Unless the code official can show me in black and white where the use of a RMC coupling is not allowed to transition from EMT to flex he/she would be best suited to sign an approval slip and call it a day.

The push to use only transition fittings that were manufactured by some company is nothing more than a push to make more $$$$$ for that company not to make anything safer.

 

[iwire]

Right. If the condulet is listed for use with RIGID and not a standard connector.

Really?

Can you point out any listing and labeling to back that up?

OZ-Gedney says their chase nipples are intended to be used with RMC couplings. Are RMC coupling listed for use with chase nipples?

 

[LLSolutions]

Thanks 480sparky, I often forget just to ask the guys at the supply house if they make something, and 99% of the time they do. I sure looks neater than a connector coupling connector, although a little weird to stock, if I got a job needing a few I'll order them now.

 

[mdshunk]

Thanks 480sparky, I often forget just to ask the guys at the supply house if they make something, and 99% of the time they do. I sure looks neater than a connector coupling connector, although a little weird to stock, if I got a job needing a few I'll order them now.

If I need a fitting that's sufficiently weird that the supply house can't get it next day, I can always get pretty much whatever I need from Grainger, next day.

 

[LJSMITH1]

Guys,

Let me start by saying that I am not trying to push any type of product, I am only trying to contribute to the discussion with a different point of view.

With regards to the UL Specifications, I did not write them, so don't beat me up over what I am interpreting. I just have to make product that meets or exceeds these standards. Last I checked, UL takes the NEC into account when it designs its specifications.

I think I know what you are all looking for, and I don't have your exact code reference or UL standard excerpt to reference that specifically prohibits or accepts your application. I wish I did. This thread would have been much shorter.:smile:

However, with your reasoning (which I am possibly misinterpreting), it apparently doesn't matter at all what specific application a product is UL listed FOR...as long as you feel its ok for your application, and it meets your interpretation of the NEC. Right? And if the AHJ can't come up with that specific code reference, then they should just sign off, right? Sounds easy! Does that happen often?

Well..it is an issue and I can understand your position.

The example of the protector plates discussed in another thread is a great example of a use that was not 'officially' covered in the listing or specification.

A connector fitting that is screwed into a coupling, and seems wrenchtight and appears to be ok? If that were the case, what would be the point of UL listing ANYTHING, if installers were just going to use a product as they see fit per their interpretation of the NEC? Could "wrenchtight" also be interpreted to be cross threaded? How about the number of engaged threads? Does/should that even matter? These are the types of questions that the specifications are designed to answer.

A chase nipple approved for use with a RMC coupling vs the same RMC coupling not approved for use with a chase nipple?..:roll: I don't know what to tell you. Maybe the chase nipple is only approved as a RMC coupling bushing (the coupling is threaded onto a conduit and the chase nipple is threaded into the end of the coupling to make a smooth exit) and not as a means of attaching an enclosure to another. It's an obvious official contradiction with the mfr....with no immediate official solution. Perhaps someone should petition the manufacturer to have a reciprocal, more defined use, official UL listing to make everyone feel good about the particular application.

Can you use a standard connector locknut with RIGID conduit? Why or Why not? Hey, its a locknut, right? All those locknuts are all the same, right? It seems to thread on just fine... I am not trying to be cynical, I am just trying to illustrate a point.

I have provided what I thought was a rational reasoning of what the purpose is of UL Listing and specified use. I did this to illustrate my point about using a product in an application that it is not specifically listed for. If UL does not *have* that configuration/use defined in the specification, it does not get specifically tested, therefore it is not listed.

 

[LLSolutions]

IMO no, not specifically. Just like a wire nut is not specifically listed to connect a blue conductor to red conductor.

NICE!!! rolling on the floor

 

[LJSMITH1]

The push to use only transition fittings that were manufactured by some company is nothing more than a push to make more $$$$$ for that company not to make anything safer.

Are you serious?:-?

Then you should invest in the R&D, prototyping, tooling, testing, and NRTL listing costs? All some AHJ's need to see is an NRTL logo on the label or product and you would be in great shape. The needs of transitional fittings are no different than regular fittings.

Geez..why do any fittings need to be NRTL approved??:roll:

 

[jwelectric]

I think I know what you are all looking for, and I don't have your exact code reference or UL standard excerpt to reference that specifically prohibits or accepts your application. I wish I did. This thread would have been much shorter.

Just so there is no misunderstanding about what I am saying let me be perfectly clear. There is no code language nor is there anything in the UL White Book that makes a statement that a RMC coupling can not be used to transition from one raceway to the other.
All this hype about it being a violation of UL listing is nothing more than hype and no one will convince me other wise without something in writing that I can read for myself.

However, with your reasoning (which I am possibly misinterpreting), it apparently doesn't matter at all what specific application a product is UL listed FOR...as long as you feel its ok for your application, and it meets your interpretation of the NEC. Right? And if the AHJ can't come up with that specific code reference, then they should just sign off, right? Sounds easy! Does that happen often?

I believe that you are adding words to my statement of making some sort of assumption without all the facts.
What I am saying is if the uses of a RMC coupling to make a transition from one raceway to another is wrong then simply show me where it states that it is wrong.


I think that I have been through this many times before but will do it again if necessary. UL Standards has nothing to do with the installation of electrical equipment. The instructions that are included with the listing and labeling process and the NEC is what the installer goes by when making an installation.
UL Standards is what the manufacturer of electrical equipment has to follow in the manufacturing process. The NEC and the White Book is what electricians use to make the installations.

In the UL White Book on page 100 and 101 it gives the listing of raceway fittings. The last sentence of the first paragraph states:
All fittings are intended to be installed in accordance with ANSI/NFPA 70 ?National Electrical Code? (NEC), and are intended for installation and use in accordance with the following information and the limitations specified in the appropriate conduit or tubing category.
Nowhere in the entirety of Conduit Fittings (DWTT) of the UL White Book do I find a limitation on the use of a RMC coupling as outlined in this thread. Any thing else is nothing more than plain old hog wash and has no merit to stand on.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Geez..why do any fittings need to be NRTL approved??:roll:

Given the quality, or more correctly the lack thereof, or many listed fittings I have no idea why we need to use listed ones.

 

[LJSMITH1]

Just so there is no misunderstanding about what I am saying let me be perfectly clear. There is no code language nor is there anything in the UL White Book that makes a statement that a RMC coupling can not be used to transition from one raceway to the other.
All this hype about it being a violation of UL listing is nothing more than hype and no one will convince me other wise without something in writing that I can read for myself.

I believe that you are adding words to my statement of making some sort of assumption without all the facts.
What I am saying is if the uses of a RMC coupling to make a transition from one raceway to another is wrong then simply show me where it states that it is wrong.


I think that I have been through this many times before but will do it again if necessary. UL Standards has nothing to do with the installation of electrical equipment. The instructions that are included with the listing and labeling process and the NEC is what the installer goes by when making an installation.
UL Standards is what the manufacturer of electrical equipment has to follow in the manufacturing process. The NEC and the White Book is what electricians use to make the installations.

In the UL White Book on page 100 and 101 it gives the listing of raceway fittings. The last sentence of the first paragraph states:
All fittings are intended to be installed in accordance with ANSI/NFPA 70 ?National Electrical Code? (NEC), and are intended for installation and use in accordance with the following information and the limitations specified in the appropriate conduit or tubing category.
Nowhere in the entirety of Conduit Fittings (DWTT) of the UL White Book do I find a limitation on the use of a RMC coupling as outlined in this thread. Any thing else is nothing more than plain old hog wash and has no merit to stand on.

I don't have a copy of the white book in front of me, but are there any limitations of other types of fittings outlined in the book? For example, is there anything that would prevent me from using a setscrew coupling in a meyers hub? What about a compression fitting with a rigid conduit body? The combinations are endless and I am sure that the standards don't address every one. I am sure that the UL White Book doesn't say that you CAN use the RMC in that specific application. It plain doesn't define anything except the standard methods.


As for UL Standards, they are consensus based documents which are developed by:

? Manufacturers, which use the standards to design products and systems that meet requirements for certification;
? Regulatory authorities, which reference the standards for products and systems used in their jurisdictions;
? Code development organizations, such as the National Fire Protection Association and International Code Council, and government agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which adopt and reference UL safety standards; and
? Certification organizations, which apply UL requirements for product evaluations.

While these UL standards may have little to do with the actual installation of the product, they sure do take into account how it is installed when the standards are developed.

You obviously have not had an inspection resulting in an issue with the installation that you are discussing. However, in other jurisdictions, I am sure that it is treated differently, no matter how you interpret the codes.

I ask you, if the application (or combination of fittings) thereof is not mentioned in any UL listing, does it still mean it's ok? It's certainly not my place to say, as the AHJ has the final say per Art 100.

It's obvious that we have separate opinions, and I respect you for that. So...let's agree to disagree...ok? :smile: