# Supporting Conduit Bodies



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

I often install fixtures supported by conduit, and in order to avoid the support requirements for boxes I make the splices inside properly sized conduit bodies, which are allowed to be supported by a single conduit. Sometimes in order to meet box fill requirements, it means using a 1" conduit body on a 1/2" piece of rigid with reducers.


> 314.23(F)_ Exception 1: _Rigid or intermediate metal conduit shall be permitted to support a conduit body of any size, including a conduit body constructed with only one conduit entry, *provided the trade size of the conduit body is not larger than the largest trade size of the conduit.*


 So, I thought it was legal, but now I'm not sure. The part in bold: Does that mean the conduit body has to be sized to the largest conduit connected to it? It's a strange way to write it.

-John


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

Big John said:


> I often install fixtures supported by conduit, and in order to avoid the support requirements for boxes I make the splices inside properly sized conduit bodies, which are allowed to be supported by a single conduit. Sometimes in order to meet box fill requirements, it means using a 1" conduit body on a 1/2" piece of rigid with reducers. So, I thought it was legal, but now I'm not sure. The part in bold: Does that mean the conduit body has to be sized to the largest conduit connected to it? It's a strange way to write it.
> 
> -John


I've read it and re-read it even with the original article for context and I'm interpreting that a 1" conduit body on a 1/2" run would be infact a violation to that article. I agree that it is a strange way to word it, but the Code is not always straightforward.

Have you ever been called on it?


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

Thinking that maybe they don't want all kinds of cobbled up trash going to a "T" or other style fitting? 

I know we fought like cats and dogs over using RE's regarding activity in petro-chemical a few year's back. 501.15(C)(6) was a war...went from 40% to 25% fill...The battle went on from 500.8(E) back to 500.15(A)(1)(4). 

So the wording is strange, and I think perhaps the styling of the verbiage needs to be adjusted? Sounds like a NEC 2014 re-write to me...:whistling2:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

thegoldenboy said:


> Have you ever been called on it?


 It's always been work in power plants. We have annual industrial permits, but they've never come in to inspect.


Rockyd said:


> Thinking that maybe they don't want all kinds of cobbled up trash going to a "T" or other style fitting?...


 That's sort of what I was thinking:
For example: I couldn't put a 6" conduit-body on a piece of 4" IMC because IMC has a max. trade size of 4".

But it would be okay to put a 6" conduit-body on a piece of 4" RMC because RMC has a 6" max. size?

That doesn't make sense, unfortunately for me.

-John


----------



## randas (Dec 14, 2008)

Being form Canada I've never even seen a copy of the NEC, but sounds to me like its still legal, you just have to support the conduit body? Drill a hole or two in the back of it and screw it down?


----------



## RobTownfold64 (Mar 17, 2011)

I've used a bigger conduit body many, many times over the years, many times you are forced to (such as using a 4" LB on a 3" conduit run in order for the conductors to fit the turn). I have never supported one, how would you do that? I guess you can just drill it and run threaded rod or put strut under it? :confused1:


----------



## thegoldenboy (Aug 15, 2010)

randas said:


> Being form Canada I've never even seen a copy of the NEC, but sounds to me like its still legal, you just have to support the conduit body? Drill a hole or two in the back of it and screw it down?


The trade size of the conduit body has to be less than or equal to the largest trade size of the conduit being used (IMC or EMT) and can't be larger. 

I know you follow the CEC but John quoted the exact article from the NEC in his first post. I say it's a violation from the information he's given us and the verbage of the code.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

RobTownfold64 said:


> I've used a bigger conduit body many, many times over the years, many times you are forced to (such as using a 4" LB on a 3" conduit run in order for the conductors to fit the turn). I have never supported one, how would you do that? I guess you can just drill it and run threaded rod or put strut under it? :confused1:


 I don't think you're expected to support the conduit body. Maybe the CMP was thinking you should use the LB sized for the pipe and if you need to upsize it then you use a box instead which can be easily supported.

If it is a violation, it's certainly not serious, I'm just not sure.

-John


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

Leave the Conduit body alone on support! You have to have substantial *support for the pipe on a serious piece of strut* (normally welded in place to support the pipes) *within 18" of the fitting.* 

two pices of strut, 46 inches apart, with a ten inch "TB" body hanging a 50 pound light fixture out of it isn't going anywhere. Don't forget the unistrut straps. Edit - needs to be 18" max from edge of fitting to center of support (strut strap).

You support the pipes - not the fitting. drilling a hole in it is a 110.3(B) violation.

You may have to use a mogul fitting if the wires are not meeting the rules for 314.28.


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

How about it? Any other Masterminds want to weigh in on this?

-John


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

Big John said:


> I often install fixtures supported by conduit, and in order to avoid the support requirements for boxes I make the splices inside properly sized conduit bodies, which are allowed to be supported by a single conduit. Sometimes in order to meet box fill requirements, it means using a 1" conduit body on a 1/2" piece of rigid with reducers. So, I thought it was legal, but now I'm not sure. The part in bold: Does that mean the conduit body has to be sized to the largest conduit connected to it? It's a strange way to write it.
> 
> -John


Why would a person need a conduit body that had only one conduit entry?


----------



## RobTownfold64 (Mar 17, 2011)

RIVETER said:


> Why would a person need a conduit body that had only one conduit entry?


First sentence of his post.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

RobTownfold64 said:


> First sentence of his post.


A "nipple" is still a conduit.


----------



## K2500 (Mar 21, 2009)

Rockyd said:


> ...- not the fitting. drilling a hole in it is a 110.3(B) violation.


Where can I find the appropriate substantiation for this statement?


----------



## K2500 (Mar 21, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> Why would a person need a conduit body that had only one conduit entry?


I couldn't tell if you were referring to his post or 314.23(F) Exception 1. 

FS box.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

K2500 said:


> Where can I find the appropriate substantiation for this statement?


"Approved" for the purpose.


----------



## K2500 (Mar 21, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> "Approved" for the purpose.


Are you saying its up to the AHJ? I could understand that.


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

K2500 said:


> Where can I find the appropriate substantiation for this statement?


How about 314.23 (E) & (F)?

Edit - If it was meant to be supported, it will have tabs poured into the mold.

If you drilled a box in a classified space, what is the rating on the conduit body now?

More edits -> See the *Red Highlights*

www.crouse-hinds.com US: 1-866-764-5454 CAN: 1-800-265-0502 Copyright© 2010 Cooper Crouse-Hinds

http://www.crouse-hinds.com/catalog/PDFS/Section%203F.pdf


Considerations for Selection:
• Determine the area classification per National Electrical Code
Hazardous Area Groups. Based on this classification, select the
product families that are acceptable for use in the particular
location.:
• Establish functional physical requirements these will help to
determine box size, cover, shape and mounting for the particular
installation.
•* Each product family has features suitable for specific functions:*
*• i.e., boxes used as mountings for lighting fixtures are generally of*
*a small size, and provided with mounting lugs when required to*
*support lighting fixtures.*
*• Boxes used for wire pulling should generally be larger to provide*
*room for easy pulling.*
*• Boxes used to splice and/or tap conductors should be large*
*enough to permit ease of work and sufficient room for the required*
*size and number of conductors.*
• Hub size and configuration – dependent on the conduit system
configuration and the conduit size used.
• Material and finish – determine from environmental conditions​
(corrosive fumes, weather, buried in concrete, etc.)


----------



## K2500 (Mar 21, 2009)

Rockyd said:


> How about 314.23 (E) & (F)?


Neither prevents me from drilling the conduit body.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

K2500 said:


> Are you saying its up to the AHJ? I could understand that.


I am only saying that it not appropriate to modify..."on sight"...a UL listed product. I would probably do it...but what is approved is what we should go by.


----------



## K2500 (Mar 21, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> I am only saying that it not appropriate to modify..."on sight"...a UL listed product. I would probably do it...but what is approved is what we should go by.


To parrot an augment I've read elsewhere(don't remember where), what am I suppose to do with this?


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

K2500 said:


> Neither prevents me from drilling the conduit body.


Is your AHJ for real? Pay hundreds of dollars for a special conduit body, and then drill a hole in it? That's crazy talk! Call the manufacturer and have them explain - especially if you are in a petro-chemical facility how the heck they have a conduit body still rated for the area???


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Not to get too far afield, gentlemen: I'm not worried about whether it's legal to drill holes in LBs.

I'm curious if folks think it's a violation to support an LB with a threaded conduit that's smaller than the LB openings.

-John


----------



## K2500 (Mar 21, 2009)

Rockyd said:


> Is your AHJ for real? Pay hundreds of dollars for a special conduit body, and then drill a hole in it? That's crazy talk! Call the manufacturer and have them explain - especially if you are in a petro-chemical facility how the heck they have a conduit body still rated for the area???


How about I pay 10$ for a not so special conduit body that I'm gonna use at grandma's house, then what?

How about any other kind of field drilling and hole punching?


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

Call the manufacturer - they know what their conduit body can, and can't do for said application(s).


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

K2500 said:


> To parrot an augment I've read elsewhere(don't remember where), what am I suppose to do with this?


Store it until you need it. And, a box like that is made to be modified and would be in compliance if you did so .


----------



## K2500 (Mar 21, 2009)

Big John said:


> Not to get too far afield, gentlemen: I'm not worried about whether it's legal to drill holes in LBs.
> 
> I'm curious if folks think it's a violation to support an LB with a threaded conduit that's smaller than the LB openings.
> 
> -John


I believe that 314.23(F) is quite clear. Not permitted.


----------



## Rockyd (Apr 22, 2007)

K2500 said:


> How about I pay 10$ for a not so special conduit body that I'm gonna use at grandma's house, then what?
> 
> How about any other kind of field drilling and hole punching?


Why, why, why would you drill a conduit body that is not designed to be drilled? Take the money out the fomula, the rules are still the same. And, you can still call the manufacturer, they will tell you, or fax you, or email you installation techniques for the said conduit body.


----------



## mike8487 (Mar 29, 2011)

*my situation*

hey john,

i think i have run into this situation many times. i have been working in a water treatment facility for quite a while and i am constantly coming across hermetically seal devices like solenoids and flow switches that have possibly 12 to 18 inches of wire connected internally to the device. if the device has a 1/2" threaded end on it then i need a LB or any other threaded body that has a 1/2" port to be compliant to the code. i used this in many apps. this i believe is a workmanlike installation. i had a inspector that made me install a separate box detached from the device because he only wanted to make splices in FD type boxes. i tried it to make him happy but it was an abomination. it sucked i hardly had enough wire to make a splice. later i found another contractor who installed their devices the way i wanted. its a much neater job. the FD boxes needed to be separately supported. i should take a photo and get back to you. but i think the intention of the code is to make sure that you can't put a 2" condulet on a 1/2 pipe. 

hope that helps


----------



## K2500 (Mar 21, 2009)

Rockyd said:


> Why, why, why would you drill a conduit body that is not designed to be drilled? Take the money out the fomula, the rules are still the same. And, you can still call the manufacturer, they will tell you, or fax you, or email you installation techniques for the said conduit body.


For the same reason I field modify any product. That is, because I believe it to be necessary.

I won't be calling Appleton, Wiegman, Square D or anybody else. I'm technically bound by the instructions that ship with the product, as well as the NEC, but field modification will not void any listing. Should my local AHJ find that the installation is compliant, and I find it to be safe and functional, all is well.

Given jurisdictional approval, and barring special occupancies and conditions, I see nothing wrong with drilling a hole in a conduit body or anything else.


----------



## mike8487 (Mar 29, 2011)

*solenoid valve*

John,

this is an example of a device where i attach a conduit body directly.


----------

