Allied IMC Conduit Specification Guide

Features How to specify IMC Comparing IMC & Rigid Test Data

Electrical Infrustructure Solutions

www .alliedeg.com

Allied Intermediate Metal Conduit (IMC)

What Allied IMC Is
IMC is lighter weight rigid-type steel electrical conduit. It was originated and introduced by Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation and is manufactured in accordance with Underwriters Laboratories safety standard 1242 and ANSI C80.6. The Allied Intermediate Metal Conduit (IMC) raceway system is an optimized system matching product to requirement it was designed specifically to protect insulated electrical conductors and cables, eliminating the need for a heavier wall product. Allied IMC is lighter in weight and has a larger interior diameter than Galvanized Rigid Conduit (GRC) and is covered by NEC article 342. Allied IMC has been subjected to more extensive testing than any other conduit product to validate its electrical and mechanical performance characteristics. It meets or exceeds the service requirements of modern electrical systems. And since its introduction, it has been successfully installed in commercial and industrial applications involving millions of feet. voltage installation (over 600 volts). IMC may be used under all atmospheric conditions, in all occupancies, and under the same conditions as Rigid. The NEC recognizes IMC as an equipment grounding conductor and permits use of U.L. listed set-screw and compression no-thread fittings. Each length is identified at 212 ft. intervals with the letters IMC 1/4 in. (6.35 mm) high and carries the U.L. label. A coupling is supplied with each 10 ft. (3.048 m) length. Further identification is provided by IMC color-coded end-cap thread protectors as follows: N Even Trade Sizes (1, 2, 3, 4): Orange N 1/2 Trade Sizes (1/2, 112, 212, 312): Yellow 1 Green N 1/4 Trade Sizes (3/4, 1 4): IMC threads are full-cut for tight-fitting connections. The standard threads accommodate all the threaded GRC couplings, junction boxes, outlet boxes, and other electrical fittings. The threads are galvanized for protection against corrosion. IMC is easily cut and field-threaded using standard tools. Bending can be done in the field or shop using a variety of bending equipment.

Features of Allied IMC

Allied IMC is manufactured from sheet steel, work hardened through the forming process to provide exceptional strength for its weight. (The steel used in Allied IMC meets the general requirements for carbon and high-strength lowalloy steel ASTM-A568). Allied IMC is protected from corrosion by a patented hot galvanizing Flo-Coat process which combines galvanizing and other special protective coating steps with the mill process. In addition, a specially formulated, highly corrosion-resistant lubricating coating is applied to the interior surfaces. (Both interior and exterior coatings meet U.L.1242). This coating, together with IMCs larger interior diameter in all trade sizes, greatly reduces wire pulling effort. Allied IMC is available in 10 trade sizes from 1/2 (16 mm) through 4 (103 mm).

How To Specify IMC

To specify IMC, or any other electrical conduit product, you can use the standard Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format, Section 16. An additional reference to cite is the Underwriters Laboratory General Information card #DYBY.

Why Allied IMC Is Better

Allied IMC is lighter in weight than GRC. It is easy to handle, and can result in sizable economies in shipping and final installation. Allied IMC has a larger interior diameter. Compared to the same GRC trade size, its larger and smoother interior makes wire pulling significantly easier. Allied IMC is made to more precise tolerances than GRC. Greater uniformity in electrical and mechanical performance characteristics is assured. It is completely interchangeable with Rigid conduit because its precision tolerances fall well within the wider tolerance range established for Rigid. Allied IMC is more rigid than Rigid. In many applications, such as service masts, IMC provides better protection for wiring than GRC.

Where IMC Is Used

IMC is recognized by the NEC for the same uses as Rigid conduit, including all hazardous locations. It can be installed above or below grade, in concrete or earth, and used in highThese IMC raceways are the secondary feeder and distribution lines leading from a basement switchboard supplying power for an office building. This installation utilized 4200 feet of IMC in a variety of sizes.

2
Allied Electrical Group

How Allied IMC Compares with Rigid

Dimension Comparison
Nominal 3/4 (21) trade size.

Weight Comparison of Trade Sizes

Approximate lb/kg per 100 ft. (30.48 m)
Trade Size Designator GRC w/Coupling IMC w/Coupling*

Comparison of Max. Moments IMC vs. GRC Calculated from Section Moduli &Yield Strengths
Trade Size Designator

IMC lb.in 1905 3432 6130 10,423 14,574 24,660 47,044 63,085 83,641 N.m 215 388 693 1178 lb.in

GRC N.m 161 312 498 1007 1364 2217 4208 6818 9466 1424 2763 4405 8915

US

Metric 16 21 27 35 41 53 63 78 91 103

Lbs. 80 109 165 215

Kg 36.29 49.44 74.84 97.52

Lbs. 60 82 116 150 182

Kg 27.22 37.29 52.62 68.04 82.55

US 1/2 3/4 1 114 112 2 212 3 312 4

Metric 16 21 27 35 41 53 63 78 91 103

GRC

IMC

1/2 3/4 1 114 112 2 212 3 312 4

O.D. 1.050 in. (26.67 mm) I.D. 0.824 in. (20.92 mm) Wall 0.113 in. (2.87 mm)

O.D. 1.029 in. (26.1 mm) I.D. 0.863 in. (21.0 mm) Wall 0.083 in. (2.11 mm)

258 117.03 352 159.67 567 257.19 714 323.87 860 390.10 1000 453.60

1647 12,070 2786 19,622 5315 37,241 7128 60,345 9450 83,785

242 109.77 428 194.14 526 238.59 612 277.60 682 309.53

103,000 11,637 112,507 12,712

* Weight specifications are for comparative purposes only. They are not a requirement of U.L.1242.

Average Yield Strengths

GRC 35,000 - 40,000 PSI (241 - 276 MPa) IMC 55,000 - 60,000 PSI (379 - 414 MPa): trade size 3 (78) and under IMC 50,000 PSI (345 MPa): over trade size 312 (91)

A Strength Comparison
The results of the various beam strength and deflection tests, which follow later in this brochure, may create questions as to how this relative strength of IMC is achieved. Allieds method of manufacture increases the average tensile strength of IMC to such an extent that its wall strength is over 50% greater per unit of thickness than that of representative samples of GRC measured by Allied. The wall strength characteristics are functions of both the yield strength of the material and the section modulus. The accompanying table gives a comparison of IMC and GRC for various trade sizes.

Allied IMC Dimensions

B CA
US

Trade Size Designator

A * Nominal Outside Diameter

B Length of finished conduit w/o Coupling

C ** Wall Thickness

Metric 16 21 27 35 41 53 63 78 91 103

(in) 0.815 1.029 1.290 1.638 1.883 2.360 2.857 3.476 3.971 4.466

(mm) 20.70 26.13 32.76 41.60 47.82 59.94 72.56 88.29 100.86 113.43

(ft. & in.) 9 11

14

(meters) 3.03 3.03 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.02 3.01 3.01 3.00 3.00

(in) 0.070 0.075 0.085 0.085 0.090 0.095 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

(mm) 1.79 1.90 2.16 2.16 2.29 2.41 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56

1/2 3/4 1 114 1 2 212 3 3 4

12 12

9 1114 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 1012 9 1012 9 10

14

9 1014

* Outside diameter tolerances: .005 in (.13 mm) for trade sizes 1/2, 3/4, and 1

.0075 in (.19 mm) for trade sizes 114 through 2

.010 in. (.25 mm) for trade sizes 212 through 4.

** Wall thickness tolerances are + 0.15 in (.38 mm) and .000 for IMC 1/2 through 2, and + 0.20 in (.51 mm) and .000 for IMC 212 through 4. There is no specific wall thickness or tolerance for Rigid conduit.

3
www.alliedeg.com

Electrical Test Data

ARC Test
Test Objective: To determine the ability of IMC and GRC to contain the heat generated by high currents in conductors, or by arcing between conductors, or between conductors and conduit. Test Description: Five-foot lengths of IMC and GRC clamped to a grounded steel column were wired with #4 3-conductor serviceentrance cable. About one foot of the cable extended out the bottom of the conduit; the other end was connected to a transformer with a secondary rated at approximately 240V, open circuit, which could deliver 800 or 200 amperes. The conductors were connected at the bottom, allowing 800 amperes to flow through the cable. The heating effect destroyed the insulation, open-circuited the conductors, and allowed an arc to form between the conductors and the metal sheathing, or between the conductors and the grounded conduit. When the arc was formed, transformer current was reduced to 200 amperes and the test continued until arcing ceased. The conduit was then inspected for damage. Test Result Summary: It was observed that significantly greater heating took place at points along the conduit interior where the cable came nearest the wall. The test results indicated that IMC will contain heat from over-current or arcing for a period of time in excess of that required for the operation of protective devices.

Electrical Conduit As A Ground Return Conductor

Metal conduit of any type should have a current carrying capacity for short-circuit faults far in excess of the conductors supplying the fault. When IMC was first introduced, a series of tests determined that IMC was equal to Rigid conduit for providing a path to carry fault currents safely to ground. In 1994, the Georgia Institute of Technology, under the sponsorship of the Steel Conduit Section of NEMA, conducted research on the grounding capabilities of Rigid Metal Conduit, IMC and EMT. This was the first update in many years to information included in the Soares Book on Grounding. A computer model was developed based on the research and addresses fundamental issues associated with the use of steel conduit in secondary power distribution systems, including the length of run that can be used with specific steel conduit types and sizes. The maximum run length for IMC is actually slightly longer than the maximum allowable run length for Rigid. Complete information on the research study and the GEMI (Grounding and ElectroMagnetic Interference) analysis software is available from Allied Tube or can be downloaded from the Steel Tube Institute's Conduit Section website: www.steelconduit.org

Test Description: Two 18 in. (456.85 mm) lengths of conduit threaded with Standard NPT thread were cleaned, degreased and joined with a cleaned standard coupling with straight pipe threads, wrench tightened. Conduit resistance, conduit-to-coupling resistance, and joint resistance were measured, using a Biddle Ducter Model 751 ohmeter. Test Result Summary: Resistance values for IMC junctions are not significantly different from those across GRC junctions. The table below shows resistance in micro-ohms as measured between those points.

Impedance Test
Test Objective: To determine actual impedance value of test assembly at low amperage/low voltage and high amperage/high voltage levels stimulating the use of conduit as an equipment grounding conductor. Test Description: Lengths of GRC and IMC with elbows and threaded couplings were assembled as illustrated, filled with a conductor using a minimum #8 wire (minimum size grounding conductor in NEC Table 250-122) up to a maximum of 500 MCM, graduating in size for the conduit diameter according to common usage. The wire was fastened to a lug welded onto the conduit at the far end of the assembly. Measurements were made by feeding a low current followed by a high current into the wire and using the conduit as the return path.

Electrical Resistance Test

Test Objective: To determine resistance across junctions in IMC and GRC in all trade sizes.

Resistance in Micro-Ohms
Trade Size Designator Between Points Conduit-to-Coupling Coupling-to-Conduit Across Coupling Across 12 in. Conduit Length

US 1/2 3/4 1 114 112 2 212 3 312 4

Metric 16 21 27 35 41 53 63 78 91 103

IMC 21 15 17 11 15 20 15 13 18 11

GRC 12 19 15 19 20 18 15 15 15 17

IMC 18 17 20 20 21 18 21 13 18 15

GRC 19 14 14 11 15 18 19 12 19 18

IMC 50 42 41 41 41 35 32 39 25 28

GRC 53 40 44 45 41 32 31 31 30 30

IMC 280 240 200 182 149 122 104 98 82 80

GRC 300 180 150 105 105 90 89 66 62 60

4
Allied Electrical Group

This approximated fault conditions in the field where the conduit serves as the equipment grounding conductor. Low current impedances were measured at 30 amperes RMS, 60 Hz, feeding 30 amperes into the test assembly and measuring the voltage drop across the circuit. High currents were approximately 48,000 amperes peak at 250 volts or 36,000 amperes peak at 600 volts. Test Result Summary: GRC showed the greatest reduction in impedance at high current because of its greater mass of magnetic metal. IMC showed a smaller but substantial drop. Impedance drops became correspondingly greater as the size of the conduit was increased. At low currents GRC had the highest impedance; at high currents, GRC and IMC impedance were much closer together.

generator of heat than the conduit itself, although the greater mass to be heated at the coupling is a contributing factor. These were clean, tight joints. The effect of oil, dirt, corrosion and poor assembly was not tested.

Short Circuit Tests On Joints

Test Objective: To determine the effects of fault current on IMC joints. Test Description: The short circuit test on joints was the same short circuit test described previously to measure impedances at short circuit currents. The fault current went into the wire, returned along the conduit, and was measured by oscillograph.

Since all the joints in any conduit run are in series, all joints were subjected to the full peak short circuit currents. During each test, the conduit was observed for arcing or splashing (a display of sparks from molten metal at a bad joint). In addition, each oscillogram was examined for evidence of arcing. Test result summary: No arcing was observed visually or detected in the recording of any of the tests. These tests demonstrated that clean, oil-and corrosion-free, tight joints did not arc or splash as the current levels and durations used.

Heating Tests
Test Objective: To measure the effects of heating when excessive currents are fed through the conduit system. Test Description: Currents, about ten times the wire rating, were fed directly through the conduit assemblies, eliminating any wire, since it was not possible to get significant heating of the conduit before the wire was damaged. In many cases, this copper wire would have melted by the end of the test. On the small sizes, full assemblies were used. On trade sizes 2 (53) and larger, shorter assemblies were used because the sheer mass of metal to be heated was too great, requiring high currents for too long a period in order to get significant heating. Measurements were recorded on an oscillograph from thermocouples fastened to the conduit. Temperatures were checked in the middle of the conduit, on the conduit near a coupling, and on the coupling itself, to determine the hottest spot. Test Result Summary: Some of the results of the tests were unexpected. Highest temperatures in threaded conduits of all types consistently occurred in the center of the conduit, not at a threaded joint. This indicates that the conduit joint is actually less a

Mechanical Test Data

Allied has conducted a variety of tests on physical performance characteristics of Allied IMC compared to other approved metallic conduit. Evaluation of these studies establishes that Allied IMC not only performs as well as Rigid steel conduit in most cases, but surpasses Rigid in many cases. Significant representative results are included on the following pages. More detailed comparative test data is presented in Allieds Technical Report No. TR-691, available upon request.

Wire Pull Test

Test Objective: To compare the ease of pulling conductors into and out of IMC and GRC. Test Description: Three samples each of10-foot lengths (3.04 m) of 3/4 (21) trade size Rigid conduit and IMC were identically bent into approximately 212 in. (63.5 mm) square configurations and tested for wire-pulling ease. Five #8 THWN stranded wire insulated conductors bundled together (providing approximately a 40% fill of the cross section the maximum permitted by the NEC) were first drawn into the test samples and then out, under identical conditions. Measurements of the maximum pulling forces required in each phase of the test are tabulated on the next page.

5
www.alliedeg.com

Mechanical Test Data

Impact Strength
Test Objective: To determine and compare the degree of protection for conductors offered by IMC and GRC against certain possibly damaging impact forces. Test Description: A 2 in. (50mm) diameter cylindrical 25 lb. (11.3 kg) weight was dropped in a guided free-fall from a15 ft. (4.57 m) height onto samples of IMC and Rigid conduit in all trade sizes (a total impact load of 375 ft.- lbs. (508 N.m). Six samples of each type and size of conduit were tested. Each conduit sample had been filled with the number and size of insulated conductors to the 40% fill permitted by the NEC. Two conductors were connected to a lamp-load and the circuit protected by a15A fuse. The degree of conduit deformation was measured after each test, and the conduit also was sectioned to allow for visual inspection of the conductors for insulation damage. The percentage of the original internal area remaining after the impact tests is shown in Table A, based on an average of the six samples tested in each trade size. The primary consideration regarding impact resistance is the total internal area remaining after impact, and its effect upon conductor protection. Table B uses Table A data converted to actual available internal area. In most of the test sizes, IMC deformation left more available internal area than GRC. The exceptions were insignificant in the differences between GRC and IMC. All dimensional data used for calculation purposes is within Allieds normal manufacturing specification tolerances. Test Result Summary: The after-impact internal area exceeded the 40% allowable fill in all tests, for both IMC and Rigid conduit. Deformation did not cause rupture of the insulation or severing of the conductors in either IMC or Rigid conduit, and in all cases the conductors were easily withdrawn from the tested conduits. It can be concluded that Allieds Cold-working IMC forming process produces greater hardness and stiffness. IMC protects insulated conductors well in excess of NEC requirements, and is virtually equal to Rigid in impact strength.

Cross-section of 1 in. (27 mm) IMC after impact test.

Cross-section of 1 in. (27 mm) GRC after impact test.

Table A
Trade Size Designator Percent Original Internal Area U.S. Metric IMC GRC 1/2 16 63 84 3/4 21 69 65 1 27 96 96 114 35 86 93 112 41 90 93 2 53 91 95 212 63 94 97 3 78 96 97 312 91 95 98 4 103 97 80

Table B
Trade Size Designator U.S. Metric IMC Internal Area (sq. in.) remaining after impact GRC sq. in. sq. mm Trade Size Designator Internal Area (sq. in.) remaining after impact U.S. Metric IMC GRC sq. in. sq. mm 1/2 16 .226 .256 .030 19 2 53 3.336 3.188 .178 115 3/4 21 .419 .347 .072 46 212 63 4.980 4.644 .336 217 1 27 .945 .830 .115 74 3 78 7.798 7.171 .627 404 114 35 1.456 1.391 .065 42 312 91 10.275 9.689 .586 378 112 41 2.050 1.893 .157 101 4 103 13.480 10.184 3.30 2129

Pulling-Force Measurements
Test Sample Number

Beam Strength Test

Wire Pull Tests Test Objective: To determine the relative capabilities of IMC and GRC to resist bending or flexure, and to show how IMC meets beam strength requirements specified in U.L.1242. Test Description: Tests were made on IMC and GRC test samples in all trade sizes. A 24-inch (610 mm) length supported on two 1/2- inch (12.7 mm) thick stanchions spaced 22 inches (559 mm) apart was subjected to a force applied through a 2 inch - wide (50 mm) load block at the conduits center. The force was applied to produce deflection at the rate

Force to Pull In IMC GRC

Force to Pull Out IMC GRC

Lbs. 1 2 3 130 85 86

Lbs.

Lbs.

Lbs.

578 165 734 383 180 801 445 155 689

84 374 178 792 88 391 185 823 91 405 182 810

378 120 534 100 445 184 818

Average 100

Test Result Summary: The 3/4 (21) trade size IMC cross-section and interior finish afford about 50% less pulling force to pull-in conductors than through GRC. Similar results may be expected in other trade sizes of IMC.

6
Allied Electrical Group

of 0.1 inches per minute (2.54 mm/min), and measurements were made of the deflection in inches and the load in pounds. The test was stopped when the deflection equalled 2.250 inches (57.15 mm) the limitation of the instrumentation. A chart or trace of the output from the instrumentation produced a typical load-deflection curve as shown. Also shown is a table which includes average force to yield in pounds for each size of IMC and GRC, plus the U.L.1242 requirement in pounds for IMC. Test Result Summary: IMC far surpasses the requirements of U.L.1242. The data shows that IMC is stiffer than GRC. It can be concluded that IMC will provide more consistent resistance to mechanical abuse because its dimensional tolerances are more closely held than are those required for GRC.

Threaded Coupling Pull-Out Test

Test Objective: To compare the relative strength of thread configuration of IMC and GRC; also the compliance of IMC with U.L.1242. Test Description: Standard stock, straightthread tapped couplings were threaded onto each end of12-inch lengths (305 mm) of IMC and GRC in all trade sizes, with adapters screwed in, and pipe wrench tightened. Each assembly was then subjected to an axial pull force until failure occurred. An increasing load was applied until the threads failed or the conduit fractured. The average load pounds required to fracture both types of conduit, together with U.L.1242 specification for each size IMC, is tabulated here.

Threaded Coupling Fracture Forces

Trade Size Designator Average Load in lb to Fracture 3/4 in. Taper IMC GRC

U.S. Metric

lb

N
47,409 22,200 57,115 35,600 87,092 57,800

lb
10,920 13,978 18,120

N
48,575 62,177 80,602

1/2 16 10,658 U.L. Requirement* 5,000 12,840 3/4 21 U.L. Requirement* 8,000 19,579 1 27 U.L. Requirement* 13,000

23,604 104,996 114 35 U.L. Requirement* 16,000 71,200 27,850 123,883 112 41 U.L. Requirement* 24,000 106,800 34,300 152,574 2 53 U.L. Requirement* 28,000 124,600 59,233 263,482 212 63 U.L. Requirement* 30,000 133,400 57,150 254,216 3 78 U.L. Requirement* 35,000 155,700 69,666 309,890 312 91 U.L. Requirement* 10,000 178,000 74,233 330,205 4 103 U.L. Requirement* 40,000 178,000

24,112 107,256 30,892 137,414 40,708 181,078 61,291 272,636 66,208 294,508 81,367 361,938 93,250 414,797

Conduit Beam Strength

1000 875 Load in Pounds 750 625 500 375 250 125
Trade Size 1 2 Rigid Conduit Trade Size 1 2 IMC Force to Yield (IMC)

Force to Yield (Rigid)

Force to Permanent Deflection

Deflection

Test Result Summary: IMC, when threaded with 3/4 in. per foot (21mm) tapered thread-form and coupled, averaged from 80% to 98% of the strength of GRC, and substantially exceeds U.L.1242 requirements for IMC. Close dimensional control of the wall thickness and outside diameter of IMC assures consistent performance in excess of minimums. GRC is permitted much larger dimensional tolerance, making possible many variations of wall, I.D. and O.D. dimensions. Consequently, consistent performance of GRC is less certain. It should be noted that forces of a magnitude to cause joint failure in either IMC or GRC would cause the electrical system to fail for other reasons before the conduit would fail.

Trade Size Designator

Average OD IMC

Average OD GRC

Avg Force To Yield IMC

Avg Force to Yield GRC

U.L. Requirement for IMC

U.S. 1/2 3/4 1 114 112 2 212 3 312 4

Metric 16 21 27 35 41 53 63 78 91 103

in 0.815 1.030 1.289 1.640 1.882 2.363 2.851 3.476 3.969 4.460

in 0.828 1.040 1.323 1.668 1.907 2.391 2.876 3.502 4.013 4.519

lb 552 974 1750 2627 3893 5200 12,158 13,958 16,183 17,017

N 2455 4333 7784 11,685 17,317 23,131 54,081 62,088 71,986 75,695

lb 446 868 1686 3060 3758 6083 11,192 19,850 22,850 23,075

N 1984 3861 7500 13,612 16,716 27,059 49,785 88,297 101,642 102,643

lb 375 950 1400 2000 3800 4100 7000 7000 10,000 10,000

N 1700 4200 6300 9000 13,400 18,300 32,000 32,000 45,000 45,000

7
www.alliedeg.com

Mechanical Test Data

Threaded Coupling Deflection Test
Test Objective: To determine the relative capabilities of coupled lengths of IMC and GRC to resist bending forces. Test Description: Two12- inch lengths (305 mm) of conduit were assembled into a coupling and supported on two 1/2 in. (13 mm) thick stanchions spaced 22 inches (559 mm) apart. With the coupling centered between the supports, force was applied to the coupling through a 2 in.- wide (51 mm) load block to produce a deflection at the rate of 0.1 inches (2.54 mm) per minute. Tests were conducted on IMC and GRC in all trade sizes. The average forces at the limit of deflection are shown. Test Result Summary: Threaded couplings on both IMC and GRC uniformly resisted the lateral forces applied, without rupturing. deflection and permanent deflection at each of several loads. Three tests were made on each size sample. Results were averaged and are tabulated below. Test result summary: The force required to permanently deflect IMC was greater than for GRC in almost every case. IMC is generally equal to or superior to GRC performance for service mast use.

Coupling Deflection Yield Forces

20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 1,000
12

3 4

114

112 IMC

212

312 GRC

Trade Size

Cantilevered Beam Strength Test

Test Objective: To determine the relative capabilities of IMC and GRC for use as service masts supporting horizontal service conductors and service drops. Test Description: Different lengths (46 in., 64 in. and 70 in. 1245 mm, 1626 mm and 1778 mm) of each of three trade sizes (2, 212 and 3 53, 63 and 78) of IMC and GRC were mounted and restrained in the Tinius Olsen machine. Force was applied at the rate of 1 inch (25.4 mm) per minute and measurements were made of the total

Service Mast Cantilever Beam Test

Trade Size Designator Cantilever Length (L) US Metric IMC

Force to Obtain Permanent Deflection At 1/4 IMC GRC GRC IMC At 1/2 IMC GRC GRC IMC At 1 IMC GRC GRC IMC

Force to Obtain 3 Total Deflection IMC GRC GRC

lb 46 (1425 mm) 64 (1626 mm) 70 (1778 mm) 2 212 3 2 212 3 2 212 3 53 63 78 53 63 78 53 63 78

lb 398 905 1479 310 630 946 262 579 923

N 1770

lb 516

N 2295 5173

lb 426 944

N 1895

lb 550

N 2447 5636 7646 1615 4097 4702 1437 3630 4831

lb

lb 561 1235 1758 338 803 1103 277 617 930

N 2495 5494 7820 1503 3572 4906 1232 2745 4137

lb 455 1034 1679 341 672 1065 288 613 994

N 2024 4599 7469 1517 2989 4737 1281 2727 4422

461 2051 1029 4577 1471 6543 318 1415 777 3456 967 4301 270 1201 736 3274 904 4021

443 1971 991 4408 1625 7228 342 1521 669 2976 1058 4706 294 1308 623 2771 1009 4488

4026 1163 6579 1626 1379 2802 1165 342 857 300

4199 1267 6895 1719 363 921 323 816 2887 1259 2673

7233 1550 3812 1334 4448 649 283 601 975

1521 3326 14,795 4773 1013

4208 1073

4506 1057

2576 7877 35,039 4106 1000

4337 1086

8
Allied Electrical Group

Hazardous Location Test Data

Section 345-4 of the1975 National Electrical Code (NEC), which restricted IMC from use in hazardous locations, was removed with the adoption of the1978 NEC. The1978 NEC recognized IMC for use in all hazardous locations including Class1, Division1. Allied commissioned Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., (U.L.) to conduct a factfinding investigation of IMC for use in hazardous locations. Such an extensive investigation had not previously been made of any other type of conduit, including Rigid. U.L. File E58688, dated July 22,1976, contains a report of this investigation, and is available from Allied. The data set forth in the U.L report was submitted to National Electrical Code Panels 8 and14. This was in support of Allieds proposals to (1) eliminate the hazardous locations restriction and (2) include IMC in those Articles and Sections of the Code pertaining to use in hazardous locations. Those proposals were accepted by the Code panels, and included in the1978 NEC.

Summary of U.L. File E58688, Fact-Finding Report on Intermediate Metal Conduit For Use In Hazardous Locations
This summary of important areas of the FactFinding Report was used as support of the proposal to the Code panels to recognize IMC for use in hazardous locations. This recognition was secured with passage of the1978 NEC. In all areas, parallel tests were conducted on GRC and IMC. At the time these U.L. tests were performed, only GRC was recognized by the NEC as acceptable for use in all classes, groups and divisions of hazardous locations. The investigation covered four areas: 1.) Explosion Pressure Tests 2.) Flame Propagation Tests 3.) Hydrostatic Strength Tests 4.) Tensile Strength Tests The test configurations were designed to simulate actual installations which may be found in the field.

Explosion Pressure Tests

The explosion tests were run in order to determine as closely as possible the maximum explosion pressures which would result from different mixtures of explosive gasses and piping/devices or test configurations. Four hundred and ninety nine tests were run and at no time was the pressure great enough to rupture the conduit. Precise calculation of maximum explosion pressures is not possible even when the characteristics of the flammable gas, air-gas ratio, contained volume, volume configuration and ignition energy are known. As a result, it is necessary to conduct a large number of explosion tests in which the above factors are varied. The maximum explosion pressures obtained are then used as a comparison basis for hydrostatic test results. The combination of factors which produces the greatest explosion pressure is also used for the flame propagation test. The maximum pressure for any series of tests is selected for this comparison, since no significance can be attached to an average value.

Mixture Supply Line Mixture Exhaust Line

Spark Plug Transformer Pneumatically Operated Valve

Transducer Pneumatic Control Lines

Test Configuration Pneumatically Operated Valve

Spark Plug

Typical Explosion Test configuration. All threaded conduit and pipe connections in each test configuration were wrenchtightened. The test configuration was filled with explosive gas-air or vapor- air mixture until the original air was displaced. Samples of the explosive mixtures were withdrawn for analysis from the pipe carrying the explosive mixture, and the exhaust line. Inlet and outlet valves were then closed and the mixture ignited by a spark plug. Pressure developed during the test was recorded. At the conclusion of each test, the products of combustion were removed from the system.

9
www.alliedeg.com

Allied Intermediate Metal Conduit (IMC)

Flame Propagation Tests
The propagation tests were conducted in order to determine the possibility of flame propagation through a joint consisting of two sections of taper-threaded conduit engaged into a standard straight thread electrical conduit coupling. In each trade size the same straight thread standard electrical coupling was used in both the GRC test and the IMC test. (No tests were conducted using integral, set screw or compression couplings, since these types are not recognized as acceptable for use in all classes, groups and divisions of hazardous locations.) In the test the coupled joint was enclosed in a transparent container filled with an explosive mixture. An explosive mixture was detonated within the coupled conduit and instrumentation determined whether the flame within the conduit was propagated to the mixture surrounding the joint. Visual inspection also indicated propagation, if it occurred, since the plastic panels of the enclosure would blow. Two hundred tests were run. Listed below is a summary of these tests as shown on page T1-9 of the U.L. Fact-Finding Report. This summary shows that in the eight test series run, IMC and GRC were equal in four of the tests, IMC outperformed GRC in two of the tests, and GRC outperformed IMC in two of the tests. A properly made-up joint in an electrical conduit system intended for a hazardous location is one where all threads are engaged so that the external chamfer on the end of the conduit mates with the internal chamfer of the coupling. The results of these tests show that flame will not propagate to the exterior of a conduit system with joints made in this manner. The last category, Flame Did Not Propagate, of the following tabulated results shows the minimum number of turns of thread engagements needed to prevent flame propagation in the same sample. The number of threads engaged in a proper engagement always exceeds these values. The detailed results of the propagation tests will be found in Appendix D of the U.L. report.

Flame Propagation Test Configuration. Test method and apparatus used were the same as in the explosion tests except for the addition of a sealed observation chamber around each threaded joint being tested. Threads on both the IMC and GRC samples used were checked to assure that NPT threads were provided. Each series covered a range of thread engagement to determine the number of threads which did not result in flame propagation through the threaded joint.

Coupling

Conduit Under Test

Test Chamber

Test Series Number

Conduit 1 (27) Trade Size Type Sample No.

Explosive Mixture of Gas in Air

Total Number of Tests

Flame Propagated Maximum No. of Turns

Flame Did Not Propagate No. of Turns No. of Tests

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

IMC GRC IMC GRC IMC GRC IMC GRC

3 7 6 3 3 3 7 8

Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Hydrogen Acetylene Acetylene Hydrogen Hydrogen

26 36 15 17 26 29 40 11

8 8 7 6 5 6 2 2

9 9 8 7 6 7 3 3

16 16 10 11 11 10 15 11

10
Allied Electrical Group

Hydrostatic Strength Tests

Hydrostatic strength tests were performed on samples of GRC and IMC produced by different manufacturers. The test results are shown on Page T1-11 of the U.L. report. In a comparison of the data on Page T1-11 with that on Page T1-7, Maximum Pressure, PSI shows that the hydrostatic strength of both types of pipe in all cases exceeds the maximum pressure obtained in explosion by at least the following factors:
Trade Size Type Multiples of Explosion Pressure

Tensile Strength Tests

Tensile tests were performed on trade size 1/2 (16 mm) GRC and IMC. A record of these results will be found on Page T1-13 of the U.L. report. A review of these results shows that the calculated tensile strength of IMC in all instances exceeded that of GRC.

This result is caused by the inherent differences in both the basic material and method of manufacture used to produce IMC as compared to the basic material and method of manufacture used to produce GRC.

Manufacturer/ Sample No.

1/2 (16) Conduit Type

Load at Yield Lb N

Tensile Strength PSI Mpa

U.S. 1 1 4 4

Metric 27 27 103 103 GRC IMC GRC IMC 3.3 Times 6.3 Times 55.5 Times 24.9 Times

A/1 A/2 A/3 A/4 A/5 AVG B/6 B/7 B/8 B/9 B/10 AVG C/11 C/12 C/13 C/14 C/15 AVG D/16 D/17 D/18 D/19 D/20 AVG E/21 E/22 E/23 E/24 E/25 AVG F/26 F/27 F/28 F/29 F/30 AVG

IMC * IMC IMC IMC IMC IMC IMC IMC IMC IMC IMC IMC IMC IMC IMC GRC ** GRC GRC GRC GRC GRC GRC GRC GRC GRC GRC GRC GRC GRC GRC

B
IMC Trade Size 4 (103)

GRC Trade Size 4 (103)

11,660 11,600 11,600 11,650 11,660 11,610 11,360 10,960 11,160 11,490 10,520 11,100 11,720 12,720 11,750 11,600 11,570 11,870 13,660 12,620 14,900 13,520 13,800 13,700 14,260 14,240 14,240 14,220 14,220 14,240 13,760 13,695 13,695 13,750 13,730 13,726

51,866 51,599 51,599 51,822 51,866 51,644 50,532 48,753 49,642 51,110 46,795 49,375 52,133 56,581 52,267 51,599 51,466 52,800 60,763 56,137 66,279 60,140 61,385 60,941 63,432 63,343 63,343 63,254 63,254 63,343 61,208 60,918 60,918 61,163 61,074 61,056

66,400 63,700 70,700 67,200 68,600 67,300 68,100 69,000 68,500 69,600 62,200 67,500 68,400 73,400 69,500 67,900 67,400 69,300 56,600 51,700 61,700 58,000 58,700 57,300 60,000 60,400 61,400 61,200 60,800 60,800 61,700 62,700 61,400 61,400 61,200 61,700

458 439 487 463 473 464 470 476 472 480 429 465 472 506 479 468 465 478 390 356 425 400 405 395 414 416 423 422 419 419 425 432 423 423 422 425

Hydrostatic Strength Test results. Samples of trade size 1 (27) and trade size 4 (103) IMC and GRC with steel plates welded on each end were connected to the hydrostatic test apparatus. Pressure was increased gradually until ultimate results were obtained. Test time duration was recorded for each test.

* Intermediate Metal Conduit

** Galvanized Rigid Conduit

Average of five samples

The data presented in this Specification Guide is only partial and the complete reports are available upon request. Statements made herein are intended to indicate the performance of IMC when compared to types of conduit under closely controlled conditions. This brochure is for informational purposes only, and Allied Tube & Conduit makes no express or implied warranties or representations other than those with regard to the product in effect at the time of sale as set forth in Allieds then current printed terms and conditions.

11
www.alliedeg.com

www .alliedeg.com Allied Tube & Conduit AFC Cable Systems Cope Cable Tray Power-Strut Metal & Fiberglass Framing

Allied Tube & Conduit, AFC Cable Systems, Cope, Power-Strut, and Tyco are trademarks or registered trademarks of Tyco and/or its affiliates in the United States and in other countries. All other brand names, product names, or trademarks belong to their respective owners. Allied Tube & Conduit Printed in U.S.A. ATC-L-1702-0608