support violation?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim W in Tampa said:
Then it will soon be a violation but not hard to fix. A piece of strut will fix it easy.
Click to expand...
How do you propose to attach the strut to a wet location box without mounting ears? I would not accept a hole drilled in a wet location box to attach it to a support.
I still don't see code wording that says the conduit can support the box that only has splices in it, and can't support the box if it has a receptacle in it.

I see the installation in my picture as a violation of the code rule because both of of the conduits are not directly threaded into the box itself. I don't see it as any kind of safety issue.
 
To attach i could use a nut and bolt as long as i seal it.
as for the code
314.23 (F) Raceway-Supported Enclosures, with Devices, Luminaires, or Lampholders. An enclosure that contains a device(s), other than splicing devices, or supports a luminaire(s), lampholder, or other equipment and is supported by entering raceways shall not exceed 1650 cm3 (100 in.3) in size. It shall have threaded entries or have hubs identified for the purpose. It shall be supported by two or more conduits threaded wrenchtight into the enclosure or hubs. Each conduit shall be secured within 450 mm (18 in.) of the enclosure.

Do you have one that over rides this ?
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
To attach i could use a nut and bolt as long as i seal it.
as for the code
314.23 (F) Raceway-Supported Enclosures, with Devices, Luminaires, or Lampholders. An enclosure that contains a device(s), other than splicing devices, or supports a luminaire(s), lampholder, or other equipment and is supported by entering raceways shall not exceed 1650 cm3 (100 in.3) in size. It shall have threaded entries or have hubs identified for the purpose. It shall be supported by two or more conduits threaded wrenchtight into the enclosure or hubs. Each conduit shall be secured within 450 mm (18 in.) of the enclosure.

Do you have one that over rides this ?
Click to expand...
No. You said that it would be ok if the box only contained splices, and would require a support if the box contained a receptacle. The only difference between the rule for supporting a box that only contains splices and one that contains a receptacle is the length of conduit that is permitted between the box and the first conduit support.
It is my opinion that the threadless connector makes the installation a violation no matter what the use of the box is.
As far as drilling a hole in that type of box, I won't do that. If I need a box that has to be secured to a support, I will use a box with mounting ears designed for the purpose. The box in the picture is intended to be supported by two conduits threaded in the hubs and made up wrench tight.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
...It is my opinion that the threadless connector makes the installation a violation no matter what the use of the box is.
...
Click to expand...
I agree.

What would you say to putting a short nipple threaded into the box and connecting the rest of the run with a threadless coupling?
 
Smart $ said:
I agree.

What would you say to putting a short nipple threaded into the box and connecting the rest of the run with a threadless coupling?
Click to expand...
That would meet the code rule, but in my opinion be a less stable support than the use of the threadless connector.
 
Seldom does a week go by that I don't learn of a "new" violation, often thanks to the Forum. Seldom does a week go by that I don't forget a violation...In actual enforcement terms, I think I have "accidentally" forgotten this one :)
 
A lot of crapy work passes NEC every day and nothing an inspector can do. As an electrician if we join a company and see they are in the lower end of 1 threw 10 we can do the smart thing and leave before our name gets trashed but inspectors got to put up with them. All part of why i declined to be an inspector.
 
Smart $ said:
Perhaps... but it is a fitting nonetheless, and would not change the fact the conduit is not threaded into the box.
Click to expand...

Smart,

In 314.23(F) , the part about the conduits being threaded into threaded entrys or ' hubs

identified for the purpose' , imo, would include Myers Hubs for example, and they are also a

fitting. So, the fact that the threadless connectors are fittings is not enough to rule them

out. There is no reason a 6x6x6 W.T. box can't be punched out and fitted with 'Myers Hubs'

made up wrench tight and supported by two RMConduits.
 
Here is CMP 9s view on this issue. The proposal was for the 2008 code.
9-46 Log #2015 NEC-P09 Final Action: Reject
(314.23(E))
____________________________________________________________
Submitter: Dennis Baker, Springs & Sons Electrical Contractors, Inc. / Rep. IEC
Recommendation: Add text to read as follows:
(E) Raceway Supported Enclosure, Without Devices, Luminaires (Fixtures),or Lampholders. An enclosure that does not contain a device(s) other than splicing devices or support a luminaire(s) [fixture(s)], lampholder, or other equipment and is supported by entering raceways shall not exceed 1650 cm 3 (100 in. 3 ) in size. It shall have threaded entries or have hubs identified for the purpose. It shall be supported by two or more conduits threaded wrenchtight into the enclosure or hubs. When conduit is run underground one conduit connection can be made using a listed threadless connector. Each conduit shall be secured within 900 mm (3 ft) of the enclosure, or within 450 mm (18 in.) of the enclosure if all conduit entries are on the same side.
Substantiation: When running rigid metal or intermediate metal conduit underground between several boxes such as for receptacles in the back yard of a residential occupancy, a threadless connector would be plenty adequate to support the box when the two conduits are turned up and one conduit threaded into the box and the other fastened with a threadless fitting.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: The conduits need to be threaded in, and there is no basis for making this rule more lenient just because one or more of the raceway entries are running underground. Often a conduit supported by soil has more give than one supported through conventional anchors. If a conduit cannot be turned in, the code permits the use of a threaded union to solve this problem.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 10
Ballot Not Returned: 1 de Vega, H.
Click to expand...
 
benaround said:
... There is no reason a 6x6x6 W.T. box can't be punched out and fitted with 'Myers Hubs'
made up wrench tight and supported by two RMConduits.
Click to expand...
It is my opinion that would be a violation. The hubs must be a part of the box. Also, unless the 6 x 6 box is less than 2.8" deep, you can't support it by the raceways as it would have a volume of over 100 cubic inches.
 
augie47 said:
Seldom does a week go by that I don't learn of a "new" violation, often thanks to the Forum. Seldom does a week go by that I don't forget a violation...In actual enforcement terms, I think I have "accidentally" forgotten this one :)
Click to expand...

I don't think you have to forget it. If a threadless connector is a Listed substitute for threads on GRC and IMC that would make it an approved install. It is wrench tight and an approved thread. This would be more secure than a Erickson coupling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top