Rigid galvanized coupling to liquid tight flex connections

Isaiah said:
I’m going to pushback hard on this issue using this string as a basis. We have literally hundreds of these already connected and wired up.
Many thanks to all!
Click to expand...

Are you the contractor who did the installation?

It seems that you are in a tough position. You did an installation that is totally reasonable but violates a listing...and not because it is 'wrong', but because 'it has not been evaluated'. So the customer is totally in the position to say 'this is wrong, fix it', even though it is almost certainly a non-issue in reality.

I wonder just how much UL would charge to 'evaluate' the exact assembly of connectors and couplings you used?

-Jonathan
 
If the installation has not been evaluated by an NRTL isn't it up to the AHJ to pass judgement on the suitability of the installation?
 
winnie said:
Are you the contractor who did the installation?

It seems that you are in a tough position. You did an installation that is totally reasonable but violates a listing...and not because it is 'wrong', but because 'it has not been evaluated'. So the customer is totally in the position to say 'this is wrong, fix it', even though it is almost certainly a non-issue in reality.

I wonder just how much UL would charge to 'evaluate' the exact assembly of connectors and couplings you used?

-Jonathan
Click to expand...

I didn’t install these personally but I like your point of getting it evaluated- we have hundreds like this, I will look into this option
Thanks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jim dungar said:
If the installation has not been evaluated by an NRTL isn't it up to the AHJ to pass judgement on the suitability of the installation?
Click to expand...
If it is something they are paying attention to, they just reject it saying it is not listed for that. Haven't had this issue with straight/tapered threads like the topic of this discussion with an inspector but have had similar issues with other items before.
 
electrofelon said:
technically he is correct, but come on its done 2,376,472 times a day. Can't he find something else to worry and complain about? IF you really want to blow his mind, tell him to also rip off the stupid gasket on the LFMC connector so he can actually tighten it up to the RMC coupling. Have mental health crisis services standing by. Seriously that is all I care about is throwing that gasket in the garbage. If I can go to sleep knowing that gasket is on the way to the landfill and the fitting is actually tight, I will sleep well.
Click to expand...
Have done this sort of transition hundreds of times and when wrench tightened never had one come loose even on vibrating screw conveyors, hammer mills, crushers , large fans, centrifuges etc. More then once when I attempted to.purchase a listed transaction fitting supply house did not have any in stock. Same thing with installing a 1/2" Chase nipple thru the pecker head of extra small IEC motor into a coupling just to save room.
 
garbo said:
Have done this sort of transition hundreds of times and when wrench tightened never had one come loose even on vibrating screw conveyors, hammer mills, crushers , large fans, centrifuges etc. More then once when I attempted to.purchase a listed transaction fitting supply house did not have any in stock. Same thing with installing a 1/2" Chase nipple thru the pecker head of extra small IEC motor into a coupling just to save room.
Click to expand...
This is one of the most ridiculous non-issues I've ever read in code topics. This is less of an issue than taping a #8 green. I knew code nerds were pedantic but I had no idea the depths that some would go. Some just love authority and listings more than the real world I guess.
 
CoolWill said:
This is one of the most ridiculous non-issues I've ever read in code topics. This is less of an issue than taping a #8 green. I knew code nerds were pedantic but I had no idea the depths that some would go. Some just love authority and listings more than the real world I guess.
Click to expand...
I agree. I understand most of the technicalities that have been brought up, but also feel is ridiculous to strictly enforce many of them. Why haven't some these situations ever been evaluated over the many years - more likely lies on manufacturers, whether it be greed, non interest, etc. Greed can be lets push a product that we did have listed even if common sense says not really needed - the so called Raintight EMT fittings are a good example of that one.
 
It will get worse next code cycle with a new rule that says fittings for rigid conduit will need to be listed as rain tight or concrete tight if used in those locations.
However threaded rigid conduit couplings are not listed as fittings. They are listed as part of the conduit under UL 6.
There is no way to get a threaded conduit coupling that is listed as rain tight or concrete tight. This will cause additional confusion in the field, as the threaded coupling does meet the definition of fitting in Article 100 and some AHJs will be requiring something that does not exist.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
It will get worse next code cycle with a new rule that says fittings for rigid conduit will need to be listed as rain tight or concrete tight if used in those locations.
However threaded rigid conduit couplings are not listed as fittings. They are listed as part of the conduit under UL 6.
There is no way to get a threaded conduit coupling that is listed as rain tight or concrete tight. This will cause additional confusion in the field, as the threaded coupling does meet the definition of fitting in Article 100 and some AHJs will be requiring something that does not exist.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this then just allow the couplings like the bell end of a stick of pvc to be used like they are currently and just require not just locknut and threads for the actual box or conduit body in wet environments.
 
letgomywago said:
Wouldn't this then just allow the couplings like the bell end of a stick of pvc to be used like they are currently and just require not just locknut and threads for the actual box or conduit body in wet environments.
Click to expand...
The rule only appears in Articles 342 and 344, the only types of conduit that use threaded couplings...couplings that, if you don't understand the details of the UL product standards, are required to be listed as concrete tight or rain tight for those applications, but there is no such listing for threaded conduit couplings.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The rule only appears in Articles 342 and 344, the only types of conduit that use threaded couplings...couplings that, if you don't understand the details of the UL product standards, are required to be listed as concrete tight or rain tight for those applications, but there is no such listing for threaded conduit couplings.
Click to expand...
Have you heard of any states or counties proposing amending this somehow?
 
CoolWill said:
This is one of the most ridiculous non-issues I've ever read in code topics. This is less of an issue than taping a #8 green. I knew code nerds were pedantic but I had no idea the depths that some would go. Some just love authority and listings more than the real world I guess.
Click to expand...
With life time liability and so many ambulance chasing law firms you have to things to the code. A few years ago my wife got hit at a stop sign driving our car across a wide street. Did several thousands of dollars damage to the car. A person came out if no where and gave her a lawyers card and said he seen everything. When my wife said we have a lawyer in the family he took the card back and refused to give her his name or phone #.. The only work that I turned down was running power to any swimming pools even though I had insurance due to down the road liability issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top