can't use EMT fittings on these?

[Ponchik]

I was reading the UL white book 2012 and what i understood and the way that i interpreted it is hubs and conduit bodies are not designed for EMT connectors only RMC or IMC conduit.

Did I understand that correctly?

Also second question, Can offset nipple be used on an IMC service conduit?

Thank you.

 

[renosteinke]

EMT is fine for some conduit bodies. Some have straight threads, and some don't. Some even have set screws.

Never tried an offset nipple ... I'd say if the threads match the hub, you're OK. Let's not try to force a straight thread into a tapered fitting, though.

 

[kwired]

I think the main key here is whether or not the straight thread into a tapered fitting seals very well. If not outdoors or other wet location it is not as much of an issue.

For a meter hub or similar hub I guess you could always use a close nipple and a EMT raintight compression to female adapter fitting.

 

[macmikeman]

I believe the issue is bonding, not whether or not the threads will hold out water. There are multitudes of ways to hold out water that can be added, old fashioned paint works great, . A loose screw on an equipment grounding terminal is an example of what it is that causes the UL to pause and consider.

 

[kwired]

I believe the issue is bonding, not whether or not the threads will hold out water. There are multitudes of ways to hold out water that can be added, old fashioned paint works great, . A loose screw on an equipment grounding terminal is an example of what it is that causes the UL to pause and consider.

If it were impossible to turn it until it won't turn anymore I'd buy that. Thread an EMT fitting into a hub, if the threads begin to jam it becomes tight - exactly what happens with tapered threads into tapered threads. If it goes all the way until it hits the shoulder of the fitting you still have resistance and a little extra torque on the fitting helps make it tight. I trust the conductivity of that more than a locknut in most cases.

 

[macmikeman]

................ Replied to wrong thread, oops....

 

[Dennis Alwon]

From the UL Book

Fittings with internal female threads (e.g., hubs, conduit bodies, couplings)
have only been investigated for use with threaded rigid conduit.

 

[renosteinke]

Sure, Dennis, I've seen that ... and UL needs to do some editing. None of their statements on the matter take into account the conduit bodies with straight threads, the bell boxes with straight threads, or the 'combo' fittings with both threads and a set screw.

I just don't see how 'policy' can overrule physics.

"If the threads fit, you must acquit"

 

[iwire]

The fact is ULs position means using EMT compression fittings with bell boxes is a violtion.

Yet it is a very common and accepted installation.

 

[Ponchik]

The fact is ULs position means using EMT compression fittings with bell boxes is a violtion.

Yet it is a very common and accepted installation.

Then how is one suppose to install EMT on conduit bodies or on a outdoor bell box?

Has anyone ever been cited on this? I guess technically it is a violation but without a solution accept to install threaded conduit.

Even offset nipples can't be used on service hubs.

 

[iwire]

Then how is one suppose to install EMT on conduit bodies or on a outdoor bell box?

It seems per UL we are not to do that. But I do.

Even offset nipples can't be used on service hubs.

Or PVC FAs.


I read an article where the UL position was we must use the cheap hardware and wirenuts sent with a fixture to comply with the listing and labeling.

I understand and agree with the goals of listing and labeling but I also think they are getting a bit out of control.

 

[K8MHZ]

Then how is one suppose to install EMT on conduit bodies or on a outdoor bell box?

Has anyone ever been cited on this? I guess technically it is a violation but without a solution accept to install threaded conduit.

Use a close nipple and one of these:

http://www.bptfittings.com/Catalog/CatalogFamily.aspx?CategoryId=33&FamilyId=247

 

[iwire]

Use a close nipple and one of these:

http://www.bptfittings.com/Catalog/CatalogFamily.aspx?CategoryId=33&FamilyId=247

It does not appear to meet the newest UL requiments for wet location EMT fittings.

 

[K8MHZ]

It does not appear to meet the newest UL requiments for wet location EMT fittings.

You may be correct. I couldn't find any listing info. I was just making a suggestion for a possible solution....

 

[Ponchik]

Use a close nipple and one of these:

http://www.bptfittings.com/Catalog/CatalogFamily.aspx?CategoryId=33&FamilyId=247

Good suggestions but I wonder how many people are using this when they have EMT installation with conduit bodies.

 

[kwired]

Good suggestions but I wonder how many people are using this when they have EMT installation with conduit bodies.

Probably much lower number than those that do use it.

Even compression connectors for RMC would not be compliant, so you must use threaded RMC, to comply with listings.

 

[Ponchik]

Probably much lower number than those that do use it.

Even compression connectors for RMC would not be compliant, so you must use threaded RMC, to comply with listings.

Classic example of something that doesn't make sense yet we are to follow manufacturer instruction. And we all know that there are inspectors that will enforce this. :rant:
IMO, manufacturer reps should not be part of the CMP.

 

[kwired]

Classic example of something that doesn't make sense yet we are to follow manufacturer instruction. And we all know that there are inspectors that will enforce this. :rant:
IMO, manufacturer reps should not be part of the CMP.

I don't necessarily agree that MFR reps should not be allowed on CMP's, but maybe there is too many MFR reps on the CMP's.

But at same time the topic of this thread is not about code problems, it is about listing issues.

 

[Ponchik]

A listing issue does create code violation 110.3

 

[kwired]

A listing issue does create code violation 110.3

True, but for solving problems in the field that kind of turns into treating the symptoms and not the problem.

Do you suggest we change 110.3 to be able to use these fittings together, or should we look at the listing requirements and see what changes may be needed to either the product itself or the listing requirements?