Transition Type Installations

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

Transition Type Installations

  • This is not a code compliant installation

    Votes: 4 16.0%
  • This is a code compliant installation

    Votes: 12 48.0%
  • I use this method and feel it is safe

    Votes: 20 80.0%
  • I would not use this method, I find other methods of installation

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Status
Not open for further replies.
We have quite a bit of discussion about transition type methods for EMTto FMC/MC/AC/NM.

There have been a myriad of methods used for the past number of years, with a recent number of manufacturers producing products that can also be used. Here I have a picture of what has in the past and still today has been the predominate type of installation for transitions.


I am curious if you feel it is a code compliant installation or not, and if you think it is a safe installation in regards to the "Effective Ground Fault Current Path."



FMC-changover.jpg


You can choose more than one answer in the poll
 
Last edited:

chevyx92

Senior Member
Location
VA BCH, VA
We have quite a bit of discussion about transition type methods for EMTto FMC/MC/AC/NM.

There have been a myriad of methods used for the past number of years, with a recent number of manufacturers producing products that can also be used. Here I have a picture of what has in the past and still today has been the predominate type of installation for transitions.


I am curious if you feel it is a code compliant installation or not, and if you think it is a safe installation in regards to the "Effective Ground Fault Current Path."



FMC-changover.jpg


You can choose more than one answer in the poll

Why wouldn't it??? :confused:
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I do it and believe it to be compliant.

All parts being used to as designed and all tested for grounding.

The coupling is coupling and the connectors are connectoring. :cool:
 

Chenley

Member
Location
Western KY
I've done that many times although I'll run a ground with the conductors. We do a lot of work for a sawmill here and all of their control panels are run from EMT along the cieling and we drop down with FMC, so they can move the equipment a few feet in all directions.

Have done it from FMC to wiremold (or maybe FMC->EMT->Wiremold) a couple of times since nobody could think of anyway around it. We even pointed it out the inspector and it passed.
 

masterinbama

Senior Member
We have quite a bit of discussion about transition type methods for EMTto FMC/MC/AC/NM.

There have been a myriad of methods used for the past number of years, with a recent number of manufacturers producing products that can also be used. Here I have a picture of what has in the past and still today has been the predominate type of installation for transitions.


I am curious if you feel it is a code compliant installation or not, and if you think it is a safe installation in regards to the "Effective Ground Fault Current Path."



FMC-changover.jpg




You can choose more than one answer in the poll

I hope they are sending more than just the green to the emergency power off by the door.
Back to the question. We have been doing that here for years with out a question.
 

guschash

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
I have done this many times and have worked on many motors that were hooked up by this method. Never had a problem and never seen a problem. Fittings were always tight and good connection all the way around. I do carry pipe to flex connectors in the truck now and use them now.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
For conduits larger than 2" you have no other way to transition without using a box or conduit body. This method has been used forever without any problems.
 
For conduits larger than 2" you have no other way to transition without using a box or conduit body. This method has been used forever without any problems.



There are some jurisdictions across the country that do not permit this method. They want a box or other method used.
If there were no problems, I would not post this.
We seem to discuss this item every year at the IAEI section meetings, it creates quite the discussion.
 

chevyx92

Senior Member
Location
VA BCH, VA
[/COLOR]


There are some jurisdictions across the country that do not permit this method. They want a box or other method used.
If there were no problems, I would not post this.
We seem to discuss this item every year at the IAEI section meetings, it creates quite the discussion.

They're not practical trade problems. They are jurisdiction interpretation problems which piss us all off! Sorry got heated for a minute thinking about some AHJ. :grin:
 

wirebender

Senior Member
I sure hope it's compliant. I just stubbed up 5 RTUs in this manner. I was out of town with no computer so I couldn't ask you guys how y'all did RTUs and this was all I could come up with.
 
There are all kinds of issues we deal with almost daily in regards to the NEC.

There are more and more people who are reading the NEC today.
What that leads to is some differences of opinion.


Some of the differences of opinion may not have a foothold in basis of fact, it is just an opinion based on misunderstanding of codes/theories. This example is a thorn in the process.

There are some who do have a difference of opinion in some of the topics discussed, and those are based on codes/theories. This example is also troubling to some, but is good for either developing new codes or restructured codes.


The thought pattern I presented above is what has provoked me to post this thread.
That is, a difference of opinions does not have to be all bad, it is what helps us to move forward in developing ideas and codes.
 

SEO

Senior Member
Location
Michigan
The fittings would probably provide an acceptable ground path. However in Michigan flexible metal conduit is not accepted as an equipment grounding conductor in any length, size or circuit ampacity. (Michigan electrical code rules part 8.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top