Re-poll

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

Re-poll


  • Total voters
    77
Status
Not open for further replies.

jrohe

Senior Member
Location
Omaha, NE
Occupation
Professional Engineer
If B was only there to allow framing members to be used as a means of support, why does it mention securely fastened within 3' of a box since it's already covered in A and per your reasoning A must be complied anyway?

I suspect because the fastening within 3 feet is a provision for the Code permitting framing members to be used as the means of support, thereby precluding the framing members from being utilized as the means of support if either exception to 358.30(A) were excercised.
 
Okay, I'm an inspector/building official. It is my opinion that if you install EMT through the web strusses and the trusses are less than 10 feet on center then you have met the requirement of section 358.30 b supporting.

However 358.30 Securing and Supporting.

AND being the key word here....Securing would still be required by 358.30 a.

No where in this section does it specify that if you support the EMT that you don't have too secure it also. You have to "secure AND support" the EMT.
 

Mulrooney

Member
Why not

Why not

Let's not forget about 110.12, electrical equipment shall be run in a neat and workmanlike manner. or 110.2 the conductors and equipment required by this code shall be acceptable only if approved.
Why wouldn't you support it? It's the easiest part of the job.
 

roger

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Fl
Occupation
Retired Electrician
Let's not forget about 110.12, electrical equipment shall be run in a neat and workmanlike manner. or 110.2 the conductors and equipment required by this code shall be acceptable only if approved.
Why wouldn't you support it? It's the easiest part of the job.

110.12 is wasted ink because it is basically unenforcible and is only in the eye of the beholder, many may think a plate of worms is ugly while others only see beauty.

Nobody has said the EMT doesn't need to be supported.

Roger
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I disagree. NEC 358.30(B) does not state that EMT is not required to be secured per 358.30(A) nor does it state the section applies in lieu of 358.30(A). It merely permits framing members to be used as the means of support in lieu of providing some other hanging or support method.

The fact is that 358.30 requires compliance with both (A) "and" (B). If the framing members are not used as the means of support, then (B) does not apply because securing the EMT per 358.30(A) also provides the support.

I would agree with you if the word "and" in 358.30 were changed to "or."

I am sorry you still misunderstand the NEC requirements.:)
 

hardworkingstiff

Senior Member
Location
Wilmington, NC
Okay, I'm an inspector/building official. It is my opinion that if you install EMT through the web strusses and the trusses are less than 10 feet on center then you have met the requirement of section 358.30 b supporting.

However 358.30 Securing and Supporting.

AND being the key word here....Securing would still be required by 358.30 a.

No where in this section does it specify that if you support the EMT that you don't have too secure it also. You have to "secure AND support" the EMT.

So, based on what you are saying, as an inspector, you come to a job with conduit installed horizontally through the studs for the wall. The conduit is running between boxes, and leaves a box goes up for 16" (with a box offset so a strap can be installed holding the conduit to the stud within 3' of the box) then turns a 90 going through the studs. The other end of the conduit turns down (approximately 12' away) and terminates just like the 1st box.

I say that job is compliant since the conduit is securely fastened within 3' of the box and it's supported where it goes through the studs. You on the other hand will fail the job because it is not securely fastened within 10' of either strap.

Did I understand this correctly?
 

jrohe

Senior Member
Location
Omaha, NE
Occupation
Professional Engineer
I am sorry you still misunderstand the NEC requirements.:)

Would you say that EMT routed through framing members, where framing members are used as the means of support, and the EMT is only fastened within 3 feet of terminations complies with the securing requirements of 358.30(A)?

If you would answer this question "no," then I believe you are misunderstanding the NEC requirements because 358.30 requires compliance with both 358.30(A) "and" 358.30(B). NEC 358.30 does not say 358.30(A) "or" 358.30(B).
 
So, based on what you are saying, as an inspector, you come to a job with conduit installed horizontally through the studs for the wall. The conduit is running between boxes, and leaves a box goes up for 16" (with a box offset so a strap can be installed holding the conduit to the stud within 3' of the box) then turns a 90 going through the studs. The other end of the conduit turns down (approximately 12' away) and terminates just like the 1st box.

I say that job is compliant since the conduit is securely fastened within 3' of the box and it's supported where it goes through the studs. You on the other hand will fail the job because it is not securely fastened within 10' of either strap.

Did I understand this correctly?

No I would not fail a job if the conduit was installed horizontally through studs in a wall as in your scenario listed above. In this type of installation I feel the conduit is secured. You couldn't move the conduit like you would be able too in the OP. The OP specified installing EMT in web trusses. Just laying on a web truss is not secured. Drilled holes in studs is.
 

mxslick

Senior Member
Location
SE Idaho
Without a doubt they are different things and both issues are fully handled by (A).

The only purpose of (B) is to provide relief from the securing requirements when running horizontally through framing members.

I for one do NOT consider a truss to be a "framing member". (EDIT: See Volta's post #5!) Studs and horizontal bracing in walls, yes those are framing members. My AHJ friend concurs with this.

Okay, I'm an inspector/building official. It is my opinion that if you install EMT through the web strusses and the trusses are less than 10 feet on center then you have met the requirement of section 358.30 b supporting.

However 358.30 Securing and Supporting.

AND being the key word here....Securing would still be required by 358.30 a.

No where in this section does it specify that if you support the EMT that you don't have too secure it also. You have to "secure AND support" the EMT.

Exactly. I cannot believe so many people here don't get this, it is one of the few things in the Code that is crystal clear and unambiguous.

What part of AND do you guys not understand? :grin:

Would you say that EMT routed through framing members, where framing members are used as the means of support, and the EMT is only fastened within 3 feet of terminations complies with the securing requirements of 358.30(A)?

If you would answer this question "no," then I believe you are misunderstanding the NEC requirements because 358.30 requires compliance with both 358.30(A) "and" 358.30(B). NEC 358.30 does not say 358.30(A) "or" 358.30(B).

Again crystal clear.

No I would not fail a job if the conduit was installed horizontally through studs in a wall as in your scenario listed above. In this type of installation I feel the conduit is secured. You couldn't move the conduit like you would be able too in the OP. The OP specified installing EMT in web trusses. Just laying on a web truss is not secured. Drilled holes in studs is.

That's a bingo.

Again, grab a conduit routed through drilled holes in studs and try to move it, you won't get far. Grab a conduit laying unsecured in a truss and try to move it and you'll be able to deflect it enough to either separate a coupling or severely bend or damage the conduit.

My vote stands.
 
Last edited:

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
No I would not fail a job if the conduit was installed horizontally through studs in a wall as in your scenario listed above. In this type of installation I feel the conduit is secured. You couldn't move the conduit like you would be able too in the OP. The OP specified installing EMT in web trusses. Just laying on a web truss is not secured. Drilled holes in studs is.

That's what I've been saying all along, too, but all the guys that are wrong don't agree with us.:roll:
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
I for one do NOT consider a truss to be a "framing member". (EDIT: See Volta's post #5!) Studs and horizontal bracing in walls, yes those are framing members. My AHJ friend concurs with this.

And the handbook does call it framing member.

Don also posted building code information that says they are framing members.


Again, grab a conduit routed through drilled holes in studs and try to move it, you won't get far. Grab a conduit laying unsecured in a truss and try to move it and you'll be able to deflect it enough to either separate a coupling or severely bend or damage the conduit.

And as much as you have a problem with that possibility of a coupling being damaged the code allows it.

My vote stands.

Stands for what?

Applying what you want instead of what is required?


If I make it in big bold letters will that change your mind? :roll:
 
Last edited:

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
No I would not fail a job if the conduit was installed horizontally through studs in a wall as in your scenario listed above. In this type of installation I feel the conduit is secured. You couldn't move the conduit like you would be able too in the OP. The OP specified installing EMT in web trusses. Just laying on a web truss is not secured. Drilled holes in studs is.

That's what I've been saying all along, too, but all the guys that are wrong don't agree with us.:roll:

Cowboy, where is the NEC section that supports the different treatment of framing members?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
OK lets go back in time

OK lets go back in time

Now Don already laid this out very clearly but here it is in black and white.

This is a picture from the 1996 NEC. At that time Article 348 was EMT.

DSCF5291.jpg


What does this clearly allow?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
Here it is from the 1999 NEC


DSCF5294.jpg


What does the above section clearly allow?

You notice the clear release of the 'securing' requirements?
 

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
The 2005 NEC is where the problem starts

The 2005 NEC is where the problem starts

If you notice now the word 'and' has been added.

DSCF5299.jpg
 

jrohe

Senior Member
Location
Omaha, NE
Occupation
Professional Engineer
iwire: The 2008 NEC Handbook supports your argument. As a matter of fact, it illustrates the exact type of installation the OP posted. However, the NEC Handbook is not enforceable and does not constitute formal interpretations of the NFPA. As a matter of fact, the handbook contains a Notice Concerning Liability stating, "neither the NFPA nor the contributors to this handbook guarantee the accuracy or completeness of or assume any liability in connection with the information and opinions contained within this handbook."

Additionally, I, along with several other people in this forum disagree that the Code permits the conduit to be supported by the truss framing members without also securing it per 358.30(A) because 358.30 requires compliance with both (A) and (B). There is no "clear release of the securing requirements" in the 2008 NEC or any of the other versions you posted. The Code does not say "either (A) or (B)" - it says comply with both (A) and (B), period.

If you can provide a Code reference where it says that if the EMT is supported by framing members every 10 feet then it doesn't need to be secured per 358.30(A), I'll buy in. But until then, I'm standing my ground, along with several other people in this forum, many of which are inspectors and the very people who can make your life difficult.

And the handbook does call it framing member.
Stands for what?

Applying what you want instead of what is required?


If I make it in big bold letters will that change your mind? :roll:

Is there any doubt that securing the EMT per 358.30(A) in addition supporting it per 358.30(B) results in a safer installation? If not, then it's not a matter of what people "applying what they want instead of what is required." You make it sound like securing the EMT per 358.30(A) would be a bad thing. If the CMP truly means to disregard 358.30(A) if the installation complies with 358.30(B), then securing it per 358.30(A) is going above what is required for the benefit of everyone involved. The end user gets a safer installation and the electricians make a little more money.
 

SAC

Senior Member
Location
Massachusetts
If you notice now the word 'and' has been added.

DSCF5299.jpg

It seems pretty clear between these examples and the context of the change given in post #21 that the intent is that "B" is an exception to "A". However, a "clarifying" change to the text was made that unintentionally changed the meaning. As a result, as currently written the "A and B" clause essentially renders "B" meaningless. However, that is not the intent of the code, and the text needs to be fixed to reflect the original intent.

The disagreement here is understandable given that the intent is different than what the code now says.
 

cowboyjwc

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Simi Valley, CA
Cowboy, where is the NEC section that supports the different treatment of framing members?

Here in earthquake country, we secure everything. Every box in the ceiling here gets a seismic wire, we don't care what it weighs.

If the case for running it over a truss means that it's supported and secured then you also don't need to secure it to the top of walls or on a trapeze either. Think what you can start saving on straps if you just run it right.:roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top