# rigid conduit question: urgent!



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Huh? A sewer pipe at 45° with devices attached to it?


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

Don't work with a lot of rigid to be fully aware of the code requirements but I could see the use of "seal tight" in this situation being an option if it's a wet location.


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 10, 2010)

rookie1977 said:


> hi guys and girls,
> 
> Sorry that my first post has to be of this nature, but im really stuck.
> We are doing a job that essential is a sewer pipe that will be angled up 45 degrees with conduit and devices running along the interior wall.
> ...


 My mind is BOGGLED...I am trying to picture flexible rigid conduit.:jester:


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 10, 2010)

rookie1977 said:


> hi guys and girls,
> 
> Sorry that my first post has to be of this nature, but im really stuck.
> We are doing a job that essential is a sewer pipe that will be angled up 45 degrees with conduit and devices running along the interior wall.
> ...


 My mind is BOGGLED...I am trying to picture flexible rigid conduit.:jester: OXYMORON?


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 10, 2010)

Sorry!!! accidentaly double posted.


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

+









+


----------



## rookie1977 (Jan 3, 2011)

sorry, typo. At work now and a little busy.
Im thinking coming off the rigid with a short section of sealtite. This would allow the boxes to be slightly "tweaked" when the proper angle is applied.

And no, its not a "sewer" pipe. But does look like one. 12 foot diameter pipe, 70 feet long, used for carrying ash from a lower level to a higher level. Was using that description to get an image across, guess it failed.

Essentially, we will install the wiring level, but the actual install will be roughly 45 degrees.


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 10, 2010)

Frasbee said:


> +
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Thats not flexible rigid........thats flexible to rigid.


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

oldtimer said:


> Thats not flexible rigid........thats flexible to rigid.


That was my point based off his question:


> is my only option to come out of the rigid conduit and run a short section of flexible pvc to the device boxes?


I could only wish rigid were so easy to work with, I would start calling the 40 hour weeks "play time" instead of "work".


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

What prevents you from putting the boxes in at the correct angle?


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 10, 2010)

Frasbee said:


> That was my point based off his question:
> 
> I could only wish rigid were so easy to work with, I would start calling the 40 hour weeks "play time" instead of "work".


 I was trying to be funny.... when I was quoting flexible/rigid. :jester:

I guess I'll never be a comedian.


----------



## rookie1977 (Jan 3, 2011)

We dont know the exact angle, we didnt even get wiring diagrams until we begged for them. Basically, they want us to do a nice job but not give us the necessary info.

We do know that they will only allow sealtite run in 3 foot lengths. Im thinking the only option (and not have it look like everything is falling off the walls!) is to run the rigid and then a 1 foot section running into the box.
Does everyone agree?


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

rookie1977 said:


> Does everyone agree?


----------



## rookie1977 (Jan 3, 2011)

lol, thanks. very helpfull, and alot faster response than I thought i get!


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

rookie1977 said:


> lol, thanks. very helpfull, and alot faster response than I thought i get!


Careful now!

I'm just an apprentice so my opinion means a lot less than some of these guys.


Some of them.


----------



## JacksonburgFarmer (Jul 5, 2008)

If the "pipe" or "tunnel" is "level" when you install your wiring, and then they install the tunnel, and it is at 45*, why are you "tweaking" stuff? wouldnt that make stuff look worse? I would think you would want your boxes square with the pipe run....

Also, is there steps in this thing? 45* is STEEP to walk on.....more than you would think......think 12/12 pitch basically.....:blink:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

rookie1977 said:


> We dont know the exact angle, we didnt even get wiring diagrams until we begged for them. Basically, they want us to do a nice job but not give us the necessary info. ...


 You would take the necessary measurements in the field and bend the conduit to fit. There should be no reason why you can't make the conduit fit without the use of sealtight.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

rookie1977 said:


> hi guys and girls,
> 
> Sorry that my first post has to be of this nature, but im really stuck.
> We are doing a job that essential is a sewer pipe that will be angled up 45 degrees with conduit and devices running along the interior wall.
> ...


Bend the rigid.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Frasbee said:


> Careful now!
> 
> I'm just an apprentice so my opinion means a lot less than* MOST* of these guys.
> 
> ...



:whistling2::laughing::laughing:


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

I still can't wrap my head around the question. I don't see any reason to use sealtite.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

mattsilkwood said:


> I still can't wrap my head around the question. I don't see any reason to use sealtite.


I don't see any reason not to submit an RFI, stating it's required to be able to continue the work.


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

480sparky said:


> I don't see any reason not to submit an RFI, stating it's required to be able to continue the work.


 Agreed.:thumbsup:


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

Frasbee said:


> +
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You can't use the coupling...it's not listed.

Try again.:whistling2:


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

John said:


> You can't use the coupling...it's not listed.
> 
> Try again.:whistling2:


Hmm...I'm trying to remember back last spring. I worked with a jman and we changed over the rigid to flex going to the AHU's on the roof of a school.

I can't recall if we used something besides a common rigid coupling...is there a threadless coupling that can be used here? I really can't remember.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

John said:


> You can't use the coupling...it's not listed.
> 
> Try again.:whistling2:


Are you saying you can not use a rigid coupling to transition to flex?:blink:


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

jwjrw said:


> Are you saying you can not use a rigid coupling to transition to flex?:blink:


I would bet most people have done it, but I'm curious as to what the "correct" way is.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Frasbee said:


> I would bet most people have done it, but I curious as to what the "correct" way is.


Rigid couplings are required to be listed but that does not mean screwing a flex connector in it violates it's listing IMO.....if it does the inspectors here would call us on it.....I would think they would anyway.:laughing:


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

This is the same issue.

View attachment 5270


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> Rigid couplings are required to be listed but that does not mean screwing a flex connector in it violates it's listing IMO.....if it does the inspectors here would call us on it.....I would think they would anyway.:laughing:


Some would and some would not, just depends on the inspector. I know of one that would red tag both of these.


----------



## jza (Oct 31, 2009)

John said:


> You can't use the coupling...it's not listed.
> 
> Try again.:whistling2:


What's listed mean? I've heard that term used on here before, but we don't ever talk about something be "unlisted" in Canada.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

John said:


> Some would and some would not, just depends on the inspector. I know of one that would red tag both of these.




Good thing I don't work where you are. IMO the listing is not violated when used that way.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

jza said:


> What's listed mean? I've heard that term used on here before, but we don't ever talk about something be "unlisted" in Canada.



Listed. Equipment, materials, or services included in a list
published by an organization that is acceptable to the authority
having jurisdiction and concerned with evaluation
of products or services, that maintains periodic inspection
of production of listed equipment or materials or periodic
evaluation of services, and whose listing states that either
the equipment, material, or service meets appropriate designated
standards or has been tested and found suitable for
a specified purpose.
Informational Note: The means for identifying listed
equipment may vary for each organization concerned with
product evaluation, some of which do not recognize equipment
as listed unless it is also labeled. Use of the system
employed by the listing organization allows the authority
having jurisdiction to identify a listed product.


----------



## walkerj (May 13, 2007)

http://frostindustrialautomation.co...91&ds=mfr&process=search&qdx=0&ID=,BRIDGEPORT


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> Good thing I don't work where you are. IMO the listing is not violated when used that way.


A threaded coupling is designed (listed) to join two pieces of threaded conduit.

In the picture the correct method is to install a j box.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

walkerj said:


> http://frostindustrialautomation.co...91&ds=mfr&process=search&qdx=0&ID=,BRIDGEPORT
> 
> View attachment 5271


I believe that's made for emt to sealtite connections. They may make one for rmc however.


----------



## Rudeboy (Oct 6, 2009)

jza said:


> What's listed mean? I've heard that term used on here before, but we don't ever talk about something be "unlisted" in Canada.


When someone refers to something as being listed they are referencing its' UL listing. That is one example.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

John said:


> A threaded coupling is designed (listed) to join two pieces of threaded conduit.
> 
> In the picture the correct method is to install a j box.


Maybe......another view is the coupling is listed to be used on rigid and is threaded onto a piece of rigid. The carlon connector is required to be listed for carlon and is installed onto the carlon. Threading the carlon connector IMO and every inspector in the 5 counties we have worked in for 38 years is not a violation. Maybe it is but I do not see where it says a rigid coupling is only for use with two pieces of rigid....99% of the time we would also set a box but sometimes the situation arises and that is what we do.:laughing:


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> Maybe......another view is the coupling is listed to be used on rigid and is threaded onto a piece of rigid. The carlon connector is required to be listed for carlon and is installed onto the carlon. Threading the carlon connector IMO and every inspector in the 5 counties we have worked in for 38 years is not a violation. Maybe it is but I do not see where it says a rigid coupling is only for use with two pieces of rigid....99% of the time we would also set a box but sometimes the situation arises and that is what we do.:laughing:


It's a very common practice but with this particular inspector it's Guilty until proven innocent.:blink:

Where does it say that a liquidtite connector can be threaded into a threaded coupling.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

John said:


> It's a very common practice but with this particular inspector it's Guilty until proven innocent.:blink:
> 
> Where does it say that a liquidtite connector can be threaded into a threaded coupling.


Yea I know.....it's not worth the fight sometimes. I want a NEC ruling on this....:blink::laughing:


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

walkerj said:


> http://frostindustrialautomation.co...91&ds=mfr&process=search&qdx=0&ID=,BRIDGEPORT
> 
> View attachment 5271


I called it!

Threadless change over!

I knew I knew it, I just didn't know it.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Frasbee said:


> I called it!
> 
> Threadless change over!
> 
> I knew I knew it, I just didn't know it.



Now where in the NEC does it say the change over fitting needs to be listed?


----------



## mattsilkwood (Sep 21, 2008)

I can't count the times I've done that, IMO it's not a violation. In a pinch I've even used a plumbing rigid coupling, I know I'm going to hell now.:whistling2:


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

jwjrw said:


> Now where in the NEC does it say the change over fitting needs to be listed?


I see the point you're making, but my question then is, is it the inspector's responsibility to monitor UL listings? If so, then it'd be hard to argue.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Frasbee said:


> I see the point you're making, but my question then is, is it the inspector's responsibility to monitor UL listings? If so, then it'd be hard to argue.




The codes states listed...not listed for the purpose....JMO..


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

Frasbee said:


> I called it!
> 
> Threadless change over!
> 
> I knew I knew it, I just didn't know it.


You Funny.:laughing:


----------



## John (Jan 22, 2007)

This is another one of those ground up vs ground down debates. :tt2::tt2::tt2:

It ain't going nowhere.:whistling2:


----------



## nitro71 (Sep 17, 2009)

Frasbee said:


> Careful now!
> 
> I'm just an apprentice so my opinion means a lot less than some of these guys.
> 
> ...


Just means you actually care


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

http://www.tnb.com/ps/fulltilt/index.cgi?part=5273


----------



## Wingnut (Jan 31, 2010)

jwjrw said:


> Now where in the NEC does it say the change over fitting needs to be listed?


 
300.15...(f)?


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Wingnut said:


> 300.15...(f)?



Wrong! Try again....:laughing:

That one is the closet I can find also but it does not prohibit it either.


----------



## rookie1977 (Jan 3, 2011)

Thanks guys,

To clarify, we don't know they exact angle it will be installed, so bending the rigid is not an option.

We have the pipe laying down level. But it will be installed this way.

It will be on an angle (unsure of the exact angle) with stairs and a conveyor running through it.

They Ave asked for rigid conduit, sealtite can be used but not more than 3' for any given length.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> Now where in the NEC does it say the change over fitting needs to be listed?



110.2 and 110.3(B). :whistling2:


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

480sparky said:


> 110.2 and 110.3(B). :whistling2:




:no:


They allow it here so 110.2 and 110.3 don't fly.:no:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> :no:
> 
> 
> They allow it here so 110.2 and 110.3 don't fly.:no:



You're saying the inspectors ignore 110.2 and 110.3(B) all the time, or just in this instance?


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

480sparky said:


> You're saying the inspectors ignore 110.2 and 110.3(B) all the time, or just in this instance?




I'm saying no such thing. 


110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or
permitted by this Code shall be acceptable only if approved.


They accept it thus it is approved. 


110.3 Examination, Identification, Installation, and Use
of Equipment.
(B) Installation and Use. Listed or labeled equipment
shall be installed and used in accordance with any instructions
included in the listing or labeling.

Who says it's not allowed in the instructions?:blink:


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

jwjrw said:


> I'm saying no such thing.
> 
> 
> 110.2 Approval. The conductors and equipment required or
> ...



Then I assume you're looking for a Code stating, "NO, you may not use rigid couplers to transition between rigid and sealtight no matter what your inspector allows!" I guess you're right... no reference exists.


----------



## mrmike (Dec 10, 2010)

rookie1977 said:


> hi guys and girls,
> 
> Sorry that my first post has to be of this nature, but im really stuck.
> We are doing a job that essential is a sewer pipe that will be angled up 45 degrees with conduit and devices running along the interior wall.
> ...


I read all the relies and didn't see any mention of the condulet T which I think you will need to come off of your main Rigid Conduit with your sealtite to the devices. You can get these at your electrical supply house with the "t" being smaller for say 1/2" or 3/4" sealtite connectors or you can purchace some RE's which are a reducing bushing. Maybe someone else can chime in, with the code for lenght of the sealtite which I believe is 6 ft.................


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

mrmike said:


> Maybe someone else can chime in, with the code for lenght of the sealtite which I believe is 6 ft.................




There is no length limit on sealtight. The 6 ft has to do with using FMC it for grounding I believe.


----------



## rookie1977 (Jan 3, 2011)

The restriction of 3 feet was a request from the customer, nothing to do with code.


----------

