jluna1234

Status
Not open for further replies.
Strangely enough, I believe it may be compliant. I've read through article 500 and other than the requirements for equipment grounding, I think you could use 4 square junction boxes, wirenuts and EMT. The standard lock nuts would not meet the grounding requirements, grounding bushings would be needed. I've considered such an installation, but in our industry, none of our customers would accept it in a heartbeat.

As far as any heat or arc producing equipment, it's an entirely different story.
 
Jim1959 said:
Strangely enough, I believe it may be compliant. I've read through article 500 and other than the requirements for equipment grounding, I think you could use 4 square junction boxes, wirenuts and EMT. The standard lock nuts would not meet the grounding requirements, grounding bushings would be needed. I've considered such an installation, but in our industry, none of our customers would accept it in a heartbeat.

As far as any heat or arc producing equipment, it's an entirely different story.
Click to expand...

Is EMT included in the list of approved wiring methods for CID2? hint - the list is found in 501.10(B).

as for 4 square boxes, take a look at 501.10(B)(4).
 
petersonra said:
Is EMT included in the list of approved wiring methods for CID2? hint - the list is found in 501.10(B).

as for 4 square boxes, take a look at 501.10(B)(4).
Click to expand...
With the 2017 NEC Edition's removal of the requirement for "threaded" in 501.10(B)(1)(1), I'm surprised EMT isn't acceptable in Division 2. I suspect it will be eventually.

I believe Section 501.30 affects 4S boxes more than Section 501.10(B)(4).

BTW, "twist-type" connectors are acceptable in both Division 1 and 2.
 
I apologize if my inaccuracy (and vacation delay) caused this discussion to stray from the OP's question, but it was never directly answered. I'm not sure what about article 500's organization has made it difficult for me to find this information, but it seems to be. It's been agreed that "wire nuts" are acceptable, but how about the Nema 1 box? With the right bonding as mentioned before, I believe it is in compliance. I still wouldn't do it, we use minimum Nema 4 enclosures in CID2 with grounding type Meyer's hubs for conduit connections.
 
Jim1959 said:
I apologize if my inaccuracy (and vacation delay) caused this discussion to stray from the OP's question, but it was never directly answered. I'm not sure what about article 500's organization has made it difficult for me to find this information, but it seems to be. It's been agreed that "wire nuts" are acceptable, but how about the Nema 1 box? With the right bonding as mentioned before, I believe it is in compliance. I still wouldn't do it, we use minimum Nema 4 enclosures in CID2 with grounding type Meyer's hubs for conduit connections.
Click to expand...

You are certainly allowed to exceed code requirements if you want to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top