Hazardous fittings

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

vvalerio

Member
Can anyone tell me if any manufacturers makes an explosion proof expansion deflection fittin that's PVC coated??? Can't fiond one.
 
If the installation is in a division 2 area, it most likely will not have to have an explosionproof rating.
 
vvalerio said:
Can anyone tell me if any manufacturers makes an explosion proof expansion deflection fittin that's PVC coated??? Can't fiond one.
Click to expand...
Hmm... is there even such a thing as a non-pvc-coated one?
 
weressl said:
Rob Roy is the only approved one that I know.
Click to expand...
Hmm... under what division?

I checked under Perma-cote, Plasti-bond, and Korkap expansion fittings and they are all UL Listed under Standard 514B only, which states in part:
Conduit, Tubing, and Cable Fittings

1 Scope
...
1.4 These requirements do not cover FITTINGS intended for use in hazardous locations as defined in the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70, the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC), Part I, CSA C22.1, and the Standard for Electrical Installations, NOM-001-SEDE.​
 
vvalerio said:
Can anyone tell me if any manufacturers makes an explosion proof expansion deflection fittin that's PVC coated??? Can't fiond one.
Click to expand...
Please describe the reason you believe you need an explosion-proof expansion/deflection fitting?
 
Smart $ said:
Hmm... under what division?


I checked under Perma-cote, Plasti-bond, and Korkap expansion fittings and they are all UL Listed under Standard 514B only, which states in part:
Conduit, Tubing, and Cable Fittings

1 Scope
...
1.4 These requirements do not cover FITTINGS intended for use in hazardous locations as defined in the National Electrical Code, ANSI/NFPA 70, the Canadian Electrical Code (CEC), Part I, CSA C22.1, and the Standard for Electrical Installations, NOM-001-SEDE.
​
Click to expand...

http://www.plastibond.com/ProdInfo.cfm?product=9
http://www.plastibond.com/ProdInfo.cfm?product=10
http://www.plastibond.com/ProdInfo.cfm?product=13

etc.

UL886
 
In most cases, Class I, Division 2 areas do not require the use of explosionproof fittings.
Compare the 501.10(A)(3) with 501.10(B)(4).
 
Last edited:
don_resqcapt19 said:
In most cases, Class I, Division 2 areas do not require the use of explosionproof fittings.
Compare the 501.10(A)(3) with 501.10(B)(4).
Click to expand...
OK. I concede the indicated expansion fitting is permitted in C1D2 locations.

But getting back to the OP, we need to establish the classification of the location where such would be installed. After all, the request was for a PVC-coated explosionproof expansion/deflection fitting.

.
 
Smart $ said:
OK. I concede the indicated expansion fitting is permitted in C1D2 locations.

But getting back to the OP, we need to establish the classification of the location where such would be installed. After all, the request was for a PVC-coated explosionproof expansion/deflection fitting.
Click to expand...
Yes, the term "explosionproof" was used, but I find that term is often tossed about and in many cases the area is in fact a division 2 area.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Yes, the term "explosionproof" was used, but I find that term is often tossed about and in many cases the area is in fact a division 2 area.
Click to expand...

The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Whenever the electrical apparatus represents a source of ignition in the course of its normal operation it must be 'explosionproof'-ed, even in Division 2 areas.
 
weressl said:
The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Whenever the electrical apparatus represents a source of ignition in the course of its normal operation it must be 'explosionproof'-ed, even in Division 2 areas.
Click to expand...
Yeah... but how much electrical apparatus do you think is gonna get put in an expansion fitting :rolleyes:
 
weressl said:
Your statement was not exclusive to the expansion fitting, but generalized.:cool:
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I believe you are referring to Don's statement. Regardless, the discussion has pretty much remained on topic, that being pvc-coated explosionproof expansion fitting, and the sub-topic of whether or not an explosionproof [expansion] fitting was required. Let's not steer it off-topic. ;)
 
Smart $ said:
Hmmm... I believe you are referring to Don's statement. Regardless, the discussion has pretty much remained on topic, that being pvc-coated explosionproof expansion fitting, and the sub-topic of whether or not an explosionproof [expansion] fitting was required. Let's not steer it off-topic. ;)
Click to expand...

That is correct as far as that I was refering to Dons statement.

If you are to install a switch that is required to be in an explosionproof box in Cl. I, Div. 2 location and for whatever reason decided that the expansion fitting needs to be located between the seal-off and the device box, then the expansion fitting should be XP rated. Should the expansion fitting be located on the other side of the seal-off fitting, it would not need to be rated. Should the device be factory sealed, the expansion fitting would not need to be XP rated in that case either nor would a seal-off required.

I consider the above a complete statement whereas previous declarations stood by themselves and only accurate in context. I have often seen how threads tend to loose their context when the approrpiate paragraph is not quoted or repeated so that the statement remains in context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by don_resqcapt19
Yes, the term "explosionproof" was used, but I find that term is often tossed about and in many cases the area is in fact a division 2 area.


The two terms are not mutually exclusive.

Whenever the electrical apparatus represents a source of ignition in the course of its normal operation it must be 'explosionproof'-ed, even in Division 2 areas.
Click to expand...

As you can see it wasn't me who made the generalized comment, to which I replied.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top