LFMC being counted in the 360 rule when changing over from EMT.

[texie]

for this installation he used straight LFMC connectors on both ends. So if he has 270 degrees in EMT and a U in the LFMC with straight ends on both ends of the LFMC. would he be in voliation of the 360 rule?

As I said in my post, no. My point is that if he had a 90, he would have to take it apart anyway. Why is that any different than if he uses a straight? It can be taken apart either way. Now of course if this flex was in the middle of a conduit run, then for sure the 360 rule would apply, as no matter how you do the conductor install you would be pulling through all the bends. The intent of the 360 rule is to limit the amount of bends the conductor is pulled through while installing, not the total number of bends in the wire after installation.

 

[texie]

I thought a C boby is concidered a Jbox (whether you pulled straight through or pulled the wire out and then back into it) and thus would start the 360 rule at zero after the C body is installed.

If the conductors are larger than #6, 314 rules would apply and the C body would not be large enough.

 

[tkb]

If the conductors are larger than #6, 314 rules would apply and the C body would not be large enough.

That would depend on the conduit size and the size & number of the conductors in the conduit.

 

[JoeQ]

As I said in my post, no. My point is that if he had a 90, he would have to take it apart anyway. Why is that any different than if he uses a straight? It can be taken apart either way. Now of course if this flex was in the middle of a conduit run, then for sure the 360 rule would apply, as no matter how you do the conductor install you would be pulling through all the bends. The intent of the 360 rule is to limit the amount of bends the conductor is pulled through while installing, not the total number of bends in the wire after installation.

ok, i guess what my quesion is and i may not be getting. but if you cant bend LFMC past 360 drgrees per 350.26, why wouldnt you count the bends where it makes a U shape? it comes down the wall a few feet then bends back upwards towards the peckerhead. maybe im not seeing why you wouldnt count the bends?

 

[Smart $]

I thought a C boby is concidered a Jbox (whether you pulled straight through or pulled the wire out and then back into it) and thus would start the 360 rule at zero after the C body is installed.

Once again, it depends on AHJ interpretation, but Code does not specifically say a C-body is always considered a junction box.

Conduit Body. A separate portion of a conduit or tubing
system that provides access through a removable cover(s)
to the interior of the system at a junction of two or more
sections of the system or at a terminal point of the system.

Note that while the definition uses the term "junction", it is still rather vague. Considering the meaning of "junction", the only thing that separates a conduit body from say a coupling is the access to the interior.

Now let's go to...

314.1 Scope. This article covers the installation and use of
all boxes and conduit bodies used as outlet, device, junction,
or pull boxes, depending on their use, and handhole
enclosures. ...

...and...

314.28 Pull and Junction Boxes and Conduit Bodies.
Boxes and conduit bodies used as pull or junction boxes
shall comply with 314.28(A) through (D).

Logic precludes that if C-bodies are always to be considered pull or junction boxes, these requirements wouldn't stipulate the condition of use.

 

[jumper]

Joe, we forgot to say welcome to the forum.

One bit of my experience here, anytime a thread goes past about 5 posts it means there is not gonna be a consensus.

 

[JoeQ]

Once again, it depends on AHJ interpretation, but Code does not specifically say a C-body is always considered a junction box.



Note that while the definition uses the term "junction", it is still rather vague. Considering the meaning of "junction", the only thing that separates a conduit body from say a coupling is the access to the interior.

Now let's go to...



...and...



Logic precludes that if C-bodies are always to be considered pull or junction boxes, these requirements wouldn't stipulate the condition of use.

Thanks for the clarification on the conduit bodies.

 

[texie]

That would depend on the conduit size and the size & number of the conductors in the conduit.

Yes, you are correct, I foolishly did not say "in most cases".

 

[JoeQ]

thanks for the welcome!! im diggin it!!

 

[ActionDave]

You Started off with a bang

You Started off with a bang

Welcome to the forum JoeQ. First time posting and you sure picked a good question.:happyyes:

I think you are correct, the bends do count. I agree with the others who say they don't worry about. I have never been called on it by an inspector.

 

[Smart $]

ok, i guess what my quesion is and i may not be getting. but if you cant bend LFMC past 360 drgrees per 350.26, why wouldnt you count the bends where it makes a U shape? it comes down the wall a few feet then bends back upwards towards the peckerhead. maybe im not seeing why you wouldnt count the bends?

You would count the "U" if you pulled the conductors through both the EMT and LFMC as a completely installed run. As pointed out earlier, 300.18 permits pulling without the final termination to equipment. You can pull through just the EMT. As such, the motor end of the EMT qualifies as a pull point, so only 270? in that pull. Then it is a separate pull through the LFMC in the process of terminating to the motor. Pulling through the LFMC, you can actually do so in the process of connecting. Worst case, you would only have 180? in that pull.

 

[texie]

ok, i guess what my quesion is and i may not be getting. but if you cant bend LFMC past 360 drgrees per 350.26, why wouldnt you count the bends where it makes a U shape? it comes down the wall a few feet then bends back upwards towards the peckerhead. maybe im not seeing why you wouldnt count the bends?

It's a flex connection at the end of run, you just treat the flex as a separate run for purpose of the 360 rule (different than a flex in the middle of a conduit run). What would you do if there was a 90 degree flex connector... you would just take it apart, now you are only pilling through the 270 degree of bend and treating the 180 degree of bend in the flex as a separate issue.

 

[ActionDave]

The "straight pulls" title is a bit of a misnomer, but if you pull the conductors straight through, as in not out of the opening then back into the "C", then it is not used as a pull box. In such case, you can't count it as a pull point regarding 360? of bends limitation either.

Does anybody do this? I don't think I ever have.

 

[jumper]

First time posting and you sure picked a good question.:happyyes:

Yep. Shall we start a pool? I will take 75-80 posts.

 

[JoeQ]

You would count the "U" if you pulled the conductors through both the EMT and LFMC as a completely installed run. As pointed out earlier, 300.18 permits pulling without the final termination to equipment. You can pull through just the EMT. As such, the motor end of the EMT qualifies as a pull point, so only 270? in that pull. Then it is a separate pull through the LFMC in the process of terminating to the motor. Pulling through the LFMC, you can actually do so in the process of connecting. Worst case, you would only have 180? in that pull.

ok, ok! He ran the EMT and LFMC in one run and pulled the wire in one pull, VFD to motor peckerhead. thanks for you time and interest in helping!!

i value all the input yall!!

 

[Smart $]

Does anybody do this? I don't think I ever have.

Do what? I have both pulled straight through, and out and back in.

I think everyone considers a conduit body as separating conduit runs for the purpose of determining the 360? of bends limitation... whether they use it as a pull point or not.

 

[texie]

ok, ok! He ran the EMT and LFMC in one run and pulled the wire in one pull, VFD to motor peckerhead. thanks for you time and interest in helping!!

i value all the input yall!!

OK, then I think he violated the code by doing it that way. If he had done it as smart$ said (post #31), it would be compliant and the way he would have done it if there was a 90 degree connector on the flex. My point is the intent of the code is to limit the number of bends WHILE pulling, not how many bends are in the total wire length. Before everyone piles on and says you can't take apart a conduit run to defeat the 360 rule, that's not at all what I'm saying. I think I made that clear earlier.

 

[jusme123]

As I said in my post, no. My point is that if he had a 90, he would have to take it apart anyway. Why is that any different than if he uses a straight? It can be taken apart either way. Now of course if this flex was in the middle of a conduit run, then for sure the 360 rule would apply, as no matter how you do the conductor install you would be pulling through all the bends. The intent of the 360 rule is to limit the amount of bends the conductor is pulled through while installing, not the total number of bends in the wire after installation.

...where in the code does it state that I can not pull conductors through a conduit that has 440 degrees?

 

[Smart $]

ok, ok! He ran the EMT and LFMC in one run and pulled the wire in one pull, VFD to motor peckerhead. thanks for you time and interest in helping!!

i value all the input yall!!

He isn't the first one to do it, nor the last. After completing the pull there is no readily-apparent difference from doing it in two pulls. The main intent of the 360? limitation is to prevent damage to the conductors. I've been witness to some of those pulls resulting in damaged conductors.

 

[texie]

He isn't the first one to do it, nor the last. After completing the pull there is no readily-apparent difference from doing it in two pulls. The main intent of the 360? limitation is to prevent damage to the conductors. I've been witness to some of those pulls resulting in damaged conductors.

I fully agree. But I think many are saying that it is a violation just to be connected that way in it's final operating condition. Obviously I disagree and doing it the way you have described is compliant. To say otherwise defies common sense of the intent of the 360 rule.