Nipple rule

[Dsg319]

That would not be required if you have industrial experience.

Why is that?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I am attempting to add 358.30(C) back with 24" instead of 18"

I understand...That is what I was doing with the proposed exception, but I was going to restore the original proposal which was fro 36", not the 18" that the CMP modified it to.

 

[tom baker]

I am attempting to add 358.30(C) back with 24" instead of 18"

It’s been long enough since the 2008 proposal, there are new CMP members ( including Ryan Jackson), so make the proposal, er, public comment.

 

[Bill Snyder]

Why is that?

Offsets on larger raceways are seldomly needed to incorporate supporting hardware.

 

[Bill Snyder]

It’s been long enough since the 2008 proposal, there are new CMP members ( including Ryan Jackson), so make the proposal, er, public comment.

Ryan is not on CMP-8 but I see your point that is my only proposal I have even the slightest hopes pass my other proposals are a deliberate attempt to add clarity to some unclear situations that have no real world implications or merit.

 

[Bill Snyder]

I understand...That is what I was doing with the proposed exception, but I was going to restore the original proposal which was fro 36", not the 18" that the CMP modified it to.

The language "within" 36" would make that a difficult situation must be securely fastened within 36" unless the exception applies then it's not required LOL

 

[infinity]

Can you post that reference? I am not aware of that specific wording

There isn't any it was an answer to your question.

 

[Bill Snyder]

There isn't any it was an answer to your question.

Oh I agree then

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The language "within" 36" would make that a difficult situation must be securely fastened within 36" unless the exception applies then it's not required LOL

The exception in my proposal said that the conduit termination shall be permitted to be used for the required securing and supporting of an unbroken straight raceway of 36" or less (ore something like that, been a few years and not going to go back and look it up)...,much like the cable termination fitting is permitted to secure and support a fixture whip.

 

[Bill Snyder]

The exception in my proposal said that the conduit termination shall be permitted to be used for the required securing and supporting of an unbroken straight raceway of 36" or less (ore something like that, been a few years and not going to go back and look it up)...,much like the cable termination fitting is permitted to secure and support a fixture whip.

Other sections of the NEC make that a tough sell such as 410.36(E) I feel 24" unsupported reference could apply to solid raceways across the board.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Other sections of the NEC make that a tough sell such as 410.36(E) I feel 24" unsupported reference could apply to solid raceways across the board.

Then how does 24" work when 314.23(E) & (F) specify 18"?

 

[electrofelon]

Seems most logical, simple, and reasonable to just follow the same support rules for a given raceway and just clarify a termination can be the support when the distance to it is less than or equal to the max support distance. Sounds like that's pretty much what Don proposed, although I don't see why it would have to be unbroken. We can put together a bunch of small pieces with couplings on EMT and still have the first support at 3 ft, so why should it be any different between cabinets? Just seems like an incredible amount of hand wringing going on over this and it just seems so simple to me.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Seems most logical, simple, and reasonable to just follow the same support rules for a given raceway and just clarify a termination can be the support when the distance to it is less than or equal to the max support distance. Sounds like that's pretty much what Don proposed, although I don't see why it would have to be unbroken. We can put together a bunch of small pieces with couplings on EMT and still have the first support at 3 ft, so why should it be any different between cabinets? Just seems like an incredible amount of hand wringing going on over this and it just seems so simple to me.

I don't think any PI to says lengths less than x" do not need support will pass unless the unbroken and straight language is there. I agree that it is not needed, but ...

 

[Bill Snyder]

Then how does 24" work when 314.23(E) & (F) specify 18"?

How does it work currently saying nothing?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

How does it work currently saying nothing?

Very well as very few AHJs enforce what the current rule actually says. In many cases they do exactly what my PI would have put into the code, that is where the raceway is 3' or less, they permit the opposite end conduit support to be the required securing and supporting within 3'.

 

[Bill Snyder]

Very well as very few AHJs enforce what the current rule actually says. In many cases they do exactly what my PI would have put into the code, that is where the raceway is 3' or less, they permit the opposite end conduit support to be the required securing and supporting within 3'.

I will be very interested to see what the substantiation is for all my public inputs to be rejected. I feel the overall exception for 210.8 is really good.

 

[mikeshea]

how many supports does any raceway require? 2 in my opinion but it seems that no one ever seems to look at the connector as a support? A connector is required to secure the raceway to a box or enclosure but it also supports the raceway? 338.30 says a raceway need to be supported within 36" or a box but when the raceway is shorter than 36 inches long the rule no longer makes any sense and for a nipple the logic has completely failed. just how does a nipple stay up if it is not supported at both ends? what do you think the connectors are doing?
I read a few code maker statements about the exception that 358.30 C provided, and that also seems absurd. comments like the connector could come loose if mechanical stresses are involved, or the possible failure of concentric KOs a concern. The concern seems to disappears as soon as a strap is added within 3 feet of the connector? If 3 feet of conduit only needs 1 support does everyone think the connector isn't providing support? I work in the CEC and I believe this was settled, either a product standard for connectors recognizes the properly installed connector supports the raceway too or someone just measured the raceway and said it is less than 1 meter so no added support is required but assumes the raceway has 2 supports when you count the connectors.
this is just so confusing. a run of EMT 5'11" long needs 1 support at 3 feet from 1 end and so does a 6" nipple? the intermediate strap does not protect the connectors from motion or any worry about breaking KOs? but on the nipple or any short raceway will create chaos?
Count the connector as the support it is, and does provide. Every run of raceway needs 2 supports. A connector terminated in a solidly mounted enclosure, box or fixture is counted as a support. for a raceway shorter than the minimum unsupported length shall be considered supported where the connector meets the 1st requirement.

 

[infinity]

Count the connector as the support it is, and does provide. Every run of raceway needs 2 supports. A connector terminated in a solidly mounted enclosure, box or fixture is counted as a support. for a raceway shorter than the minimum unsupported length shall be considered supported where the connector meets the 1st requirement.

Of course this makes perfect sense but the CMP responsible for this rule is really dumb so we can just bang our heads against the wall because you can't fix stupid.

 

[fishin' electrician]

The IAEI and the CMP members do not actually understand what the code rule says