G fittings

[Jon1980]

Where does it say that you must install these fittings? Class 1 div 2 We typically install a uny, lby, then a seal out of instuments. From there it varies per customer, marine cable w/ clx connectors, metalic braided flex, but generally transition to seal tight (18") then back to conduit. Sealing before entering into a plc cabinet. Are Form 7 fittings not acceptable in this conduit system? I've seen conduit systems on pump pads both ways.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[Jim1959]

G fittings

Form7fittingsareaccepptableinaClassIDiv2area.ByyourtermGfittings,doyoumeanAppletongGRseriesoffittings?Thisspacebarnotworkingissueisannoying.....................

 

[Jon1980]

Yes Appleton or Crouse

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[rbalex]

To answer your original question, in 2014 and earlier NEC editions, see Section 501.15(B)(1). It takes a circuitous route that ultimately lands in Section 501.15(A)(1)(1) last paragraph.

However, beginning with the 2017 NEC, "... explosionproof ... conduit bodies similar to L, T, and Cross types that are not larger than the trade size of the conduit shall be permitted between the sealing fitting and the explosionproof enclosure", will no longer be true. I understand why the CMP made this change but I believe it was in error. There was absolutely no record of an actual historical problem only some hypothetical issues. Had I still been on the Panel I would have fought it. I'm surprised the manufacturers didn't fight it; it cuts into their profits.

 

[Jon1980]

To answer your original question, in 2014 and earlier NEC editions, see Section 501.15(B)(1). It takes a circuitous route that ultimately lands in Section 501.15(A)(1)(1) last paragraph.

However, beginning with the 2017 NEC, "... explosionproof ... conduit bodies similar to L, T, and Cross types that are not larger than the trade size of the conduit shall be permitted between the sealing fitting and the explosionproof enclosure", will no longer be true. I understand why the CMP made this change but I believe it was in error. There was absolutely no record of an actual historical problem only some hypothetical issues. Had I still been on the Panel I would have fought it. I'm surprised the manufacturers didn't fight it; it cuts into their profits.

Thanks I look into this,

Would this apply to a UNL (90 degree union) also? This makes it very difficult to tie into a mov (Motor operated valve) since their is a position rod that raises up when open. These threaded ports are almost always locaded on the same side. If a union, seal, then fitting. This always interferes with this rod. The fitting has to be on the union side to clear.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk

 

[rbalex]

A UNL is fine. I only mentioned what wasn't fine any longer under the 2017 NEC. Read Section 501.15(A)(1) [last paragraph] carefully; explosionproof unions are still acceptable between the explosionproof enclosure and the seal. Truth is in 45 years I've never seen a UL listed union that wasn't explosionproof.

Form 7s are acceptable beyond the seal.

 

[Jon1980]

Thank for the clarifications.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G530A using Tapatalk