Wireway U pulls

Merry Christmas
Status
Not open for further replies.
Twoskinsoneman

Twoskinsoneman

Senior Member
Location
West Virginia, USA NEC: 2020
Occupation
Facility Senior Electrician
Which of these illustrations is accurate?

1003600939_2.gif


1016752302_2.gif


Also the section seems to imply that increase for additional entries should apply to the distance from opposite wall AND distance between raceways...

What say ye?!

314.28(A)(2)
(2) Angle or U Pulls or Splices. Where splices or where
angle or U pulls are made, the distance between each raceway
entry inside the box and the opposite wall of the box
shall not be less than six times the metric designator (trade
size) of the largest raceway in a row. This distance shall be
increased for additional entries by the amount of the sum of
the diameters of all other raceway entries in the same row
on the same wall of the box. Each row shall be calculated
individually, and the single row that provides the maximum
distance shall be used.
 
You didn't post the second paragraph of the article that explains the distance between rule.


The distance between raceway entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less than six times the metric designator (trade size) of the larger raceway.

Rick
 
Actually this has come up for me before.

I must report that I believe both drawings to be incorrect :) …


Section 376.23(B) Metallic Wireways Used as Pull Boxes [08 NEC] States that:
Where insulated conductors 4 AWG or larger are pulled through a wireway, the distance between raceway and cable entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less than that required by 314.28(A)(1) for straight pulls and 314.28(A)(2) for angle pulls. When transposing cable size into raceway size, the minimum metric designator (trade size) raceway required for the number and size of conductors in the cable shall be used.

The measurement to the opposite wall is not necessary for compliance with Section 376.23(B) when wireways are used as pullboxes… This section is only asking for compliance with conduit entries enclosing the same conductor...


The correct spacing between conduits enclosing the same conductor is reflected in the lower graphic (in my opinion…)

edit: ...I guess spacing between entries is the same in both graphics... The distance between these conduit entries should be 14 inches...

mweaver
 
Last edited:
So these code references would prohibit me from adding 4 additional 1" conduit entries on the lower wireway wall because I can't increase the opposite wall distance by another 4" unless I change the wireway?!? Even if my wireway is 20' long and I place the new 1" entries at the other end??
 
RUWired said:
You didn't post the second paragraph of the article that explains the distance between rule.


The distance between raceway entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less than six times the metric designator (trade size) of the larger raceway.

Rick
Click to expand...

Well here's the rest of it. I don't see where it gives relief of the requirement to add distance for additional raceways. It says it shall be not less than...blah blah. It doesn't say it never has to be more than...


Exception: Where a raceway or cable entry is in the wall
of a box or conduit body opposite a removable cover, the
distance from that wall to the cover shall be permitted to
comply with the distance required for one wire per terminal
in Table 312.6(A).

The distance between raceway entries enclosing the
same conductor shall not be less than six times the metric
designator (trade size) of the larger raceway.
When transposing cable size into raceway size in
314.28(A)(1) and (A)(2), the minimum metric designator
(trade size) raceway required for the number and size of
conductors in the cable shall be used.
 
KentAT,

I am not clear if your question:
?So these code references would prohibit me from adding 4 additional 1" conduit entries on the lower wireway wall because I can't increase the opposite wall distance by another 4" unless I change the wireway?!? Even if my wireway is 20' long and I place the new 1" entries at the other end?? ?

..was addressing my statement or not?

?I don?t believe these code requirements restrict your adding the conduits in your question? Add away?

mweaver
 
mweaver said:
…I don’t believe these code requirements restrict your adding the conduits in your question… Add away…

mweaver
Click to expand...

I'm addressing the code requirements as well as this discussion...

If the minimum distance to the opposite wall requires allowances for all conduit entries in the same row, then how can I later add more conduit entries on that row unless I also add distance to the opposite wall at the same time??

IOW, if the lower drawing requires a wireway 14" tall, and I complete my installation, how can I add 4 more 1" conduit entries to the same row (the lower wall)? Wouldn't that change the effective minimum distance to the opposite wall from 14" (2in. x 6 + 2 = 14")to 20" (2in x 6 + 2 +1 +1 +1 +1= 20")?
 
Last edited:
Opposite wall dimensions do not apply here...

Opposite wall dimensions do not apply here...

KentAT,

I am trying to follow, but apparently I am really slow this afternoon?

You stated: ?IOW, if the lower drawing requires a wireway 14" tall?

The wireway does not require this dimension to be 14" tall?


The measurement to the opposite wall is not necessary for compliance with Section 376.23(B) when wireways are used as pullboxes? This section is only asking for compliance with conduit entries enclosing the same conductor...


I discussed this with NFPA personnel some time ago and he informed me that:
Opposite wall dimension has no bearing with the requirements of section 376.23(B)


?am I still missing something ??


mweaver
 
KentAT said:
So these code references would prohibit me from adding 4 additional 1" conduit entries on the lower wireway wall because I can't increase the opposite wall distance by another 4" unless I change the wireway?!? Even if my wireway is 20' long and I place the new 1" entries at the other end??
Click to expand...

I see your pain in the way the rule is writen. In order to install the additional conduit after the initial installation you could add permanet barriers inside the wire way to section each area off. see 314.28(3)D. Keeping in mind that the rule applies only to # 4awg and larger.

Rick
 
mweaver said:
The wireway does not require this dimension to be 14" tall?


The measurement to the opposite wall is not necessary for compliance with Section 376.23(B) when wireways are used as pullboxes? This section is only asking for compliance with conduit entries enclosing the same conductor...


I discussed this with NFPA personnel some time ago and he informed me that:
Opposite wall dimension has no bearing with the requirements of section 376.23(B)


?am I still missing something ??


mweaver
Click to expand...
M
Did you read the article in 376.23. it states that you must follow the rules in 314.28(A)2

(B) Metallic Wireways Used as Pull Boxes. Where insulated conductors 4 AWG or larger are pulled through a wireway, the distance between raceway and cable entries enclosing the same conductor shall not be less than that required by 314.28(A)(1) for straight pulls and 314.28(A)(2) for angle pulls. When transposing cable size into raceway size, the minimum metric designator (trade size) raceway required for the number and size of conductors in the cable shall be used.
The requirements in 376.23(B) ensure that where wireways are used as pull boxes, the same minimum dimension requirements associated with raceway entries of pull boxes apply.
 
mweaver said:
KentAT,

I am trying to follow, but apparently I am really slow this afternoon…

You stated: “IOW, if the lower drawing requires a wireway 14" tall”

The wireway does not require this dimension to be 14" tall…


The measurement to the opposite wall is not necessary for compliance with Section 376.23(B) when wireways are used as pullboxes… This section is only asking for compliance with conduit entries enclosing the same conductor...


I discussed this with NFPA personnel some time ago and he informed me that:
Opposite wall dimension has no bearing with the requirements of section 376.23(B)


…am I still missing something ??


mweaver
Click to expand...


Nope. I reread it several more times. I get it now- I was hung up on the opposite wall thing.

BUT, if conductors 4AWG or larger were to be pulled from the left 2" conduit on the drawing straight to a 2" entry on the top side, then 314.28.(A)(1) would require a minimum of 16" between the two entries (2in x 8 = 16in), which would happen be opposite each other.

Since I typically only see max wireway width of 12", that means I can put 4AWG conductors through 1-1/2" entries on a straight pull (1.5in x 8 = 12") but I cannot put them through 2" entries on the same 12" wireway. :cool:
 
Last edited:
KentAT said:
BUT, if conductors 4AWG or larger were to be pulled from the left 2" conduit on the drawing straight to a 2" entry on the top side, then 314.28.(A)(1) would require a minimum of 16" between the two entries (2in x 8 = 16in), which would happen be opposite each other.
Click to expand...

If the conduits are in the same row then it would require the 16" distance, but if you knocked out the wireway towards the front or middle, you could keep the 14" dimension.
Rick
 
Last edited:
Opposite wall dimensions do not apply here...

Opposite wall dimensions do not apply here...

RUWired,

I will be the first to admit that I could be misunderstanding this…



You stated: “ Did you read the article in 376.23.”
I did…

You stated: “ it states that you must follow the rules in 314.28(A)2”
It does not state that you comply with all of the requirements…

It is only asking for compliance with the distance between conduit entries enclosing the same conductor…


My conversation with NFPA staff revealed:

If one wanted to utilize this 6” wireway as a pullbox (in either drawing depicted above), all that is necessary is to stagger or arrange the conduit entries enclosing the same conductor so that the spacing between conduit entries enclosing the same conductor is in compliance with Section 314.28(A)(1) for straight pulls and 314.28(A)(2) for angle pulls. (A straight pull would effect wireway width...) Adequate staggering or spacing of the conduit entries enclosing the same conductor can bring the 6” wireway into compliance for an angle pull or for a U pull without increasing the wireway from its original 6” width…

The requirement for opposite wall dimensions within Section 314.28(A)(2) for angle pulls does not apply to wireways or auxiliary gutters when wireways or auxiliary gutters are used as pullboxes.

This reflects my discussion with NFPA personnell on this very issue...


mweaver
 
Last edited:
If one wanted to use either depicted 6" wireway as a pullbox with one conduit entering the bottom wireway wall and another conduit entering the top wireway wall, all that is necessary for compliance is to stagger the conduit entries enclosing the same conductor so the dimension between said conduit entries enclosing the same conductor is in compliance with Section 314.28(A)(2)?

Kind of an angled straight pull ... :) ? but still within compliance and still utilizing the 6" wireway. Opposite wall dimension will not apply here for an angle or U pull...

...sorry, I meant to include this with my previous post, but I failed...

mweaver
 
mweaver said:
You stated: ? it states that you must follow the rules in 314.28(A)2?
It does not state that you comply with all of the requirements?

It is only asking for compliance with the distance between conduit entries enclosing the same conductor?
Click to expand...

"And the wall opposite". 376.23 says to follow the rules of 314.28(A)2. In those rules, it says to add to the dimensions of the same row to the largest conduit in the row. I agree if they are staggard, you can reduce the amount of the additional conduits not in the same row.

mweaver said:
Adequate staggering or spacing of the conduit entries enclosing the same conductor can bring the 6? wireway into compliance for an angle pull or for a U pull without increasing the wireway from its original 6? width?
Click to expand...
For the width if staggard i agree, for the depth no.
mweaver said:
The requirement for opposite wall dimensions within Section 314.28(A)(2) for angle pulls does not apply to wireways or auxiliary gutters when wireways or auxiliary gutters are used as pullboxes.

mweaver
Click to expand...
M
376.23 states that it shall.
shall not be less than that required by..... 314.28(A)(2) for angle pulls.

And from the hand book just for reference.
The requirements in 376.23(B) ensure that where wireways are used as pull boxes, the same minimum dimension requirements associated with raceway entries of pull boxes apply.

Rick
 
RUWired said:
"

For the width if staggard i agree, for the depth no.
Click to expand...
I should clarify this statement. I might have said it wrong. For the depth ( opposite wall), the 6" wireway with the 2" conduit needs to be 12" deep if staggard and the width can be less if staggard.

Rick
 
Last edited:
mweaver said:
KentAT,

I am trying to follow, but apparently I am really slow this afternoon?

You stated: ?IOW, if the lower drawing requires a wireway 14" tall?

The wireway does not require this dimension to be 14" tall?


The measurement to the opposite wall is not necessary for compliance with Section 376.23(B) when wireways are used as pullboxes? This section is only asking for compliance with conduit entries enclosing the same conductor...


I discussed this with NFPA personnel some time ago and he informed me that:
Opposite wall dimension has no bearing with the requirements of section 376.23(B)


?am I still missing something ??


mweaver
Click to expand...
mweaver:
one of us is..
my opinion is that dwg. #2 is correct, 14" wide wireway is needed.

KentAT: If you added 1", akign them closer to the front or back of the wireway and then they wouodn;t be in the "same row" as the 2".
 
Gus and Rick,

Thanks for your continued efforts to clarify this for me.

This is obviously falling on my deaf ears and thick head this afternoon and I am plagued with my (apparently failing) memory of that conversation with NFPA staff on this very subject, which I really thought I understood, at the time...


For now I should defer to your experience and I will review those posts I had with NFPA staff (I should still have them...), which may help me again...

... This won't be the first time I was led by the hand, and still got it wrong :) ...won't be the last either, I am sure...

Regardless, thanks for your help, I do appreciate it,

mweaver
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top