Re-poll

[mxslick]

No, previous codes show us how we got here and in this case clearly demonstrate the code making panels willingness to allow unsecured conduits.

Regardless, current wording of the Code REQUIRES support and securing of the conduits. End of discussion.

To quote you in principle, I am dismayed that someone who has such a strong sense of following Code is so adamant in disagreeing with something that your own research and postings of Code Articles here clearly indicates that your interpretation is incorrect.

As it is written, the conduits in the truss MUST be secured at the 10' or less intervals.

Until the "and" is removed from 358.30 this is the way it is and anyone trying to say differently is just plain wrong.

Like jhroe, I am done with this discussion. The language of this Code section is crystal clear and is enforced as written by L.A. County and for my neck of the woods that is the ONLY Code-Compliant way to run conduit thru trusses, with securing at not more than 10' intervals.

 

[roger]

Like jhroe, I am done with this discussion.

Sure you are. :grin:

Is it the poll results?

Roger

 

[LarryFine]

. . . I would likely respond that I take no exception as long as ... a reasonable credit is offered to the Owner.

That presumes the contractor included the every-10'-strapping in his contract to begin with, doesn't it?

 

[iwire]

Regardless, current wording of the Code REQUIRES support and securing of the conduits. End of discussion.

Can I get you to at least admit that no additional supports were required in 96, 99 and 02?

To quote you in principle, I am dismayed that someone who has such a strong sense of following Code is so adamant in disagreeing with something that your own research and postings of Code Articles here clearly indicates that your interpretation is incorrect

My own 'reaseach' shows no such conclusion, my research shows they did not put one bit of thought into the addition of the word 'and'. A wording change was proposed for reasons of following the NFPAs manual of style, not a change of intent.

Have you taken the time to read the ROPs and ROCs?

No, I did not think so, you are just shooting from the hip.

As it is written, the conduits in the truss MUST be secured at the 10' or less intervals.

If that is true for trusses it is true for studs and even the inspectors have agreed in studs the conduit does not need additional support.

Until the "and" is removed from 358.30 this is the way it is and anyone trying to say differently is just plain wrong.

That is just an opinion, not a fact.

Like jhroe, I am done with this discussion

Having trouble with the outcome huh?

The language of this Code section is crystal clear and is enforced as written by L.A. County and for my neck of the woods that is the ONLY Code-Compliant way to run conduit thru trusses, with securing at not more than 10' intervals.

Again a CA inspector has stated that he does not require extra securing in for horizontal runs in studs so apparently your thoughts of what CA allows are misguided.

 

[jusme123]

the last word in this thread should appropriately be,................AND! :grin:

 

[LarryFine]

the last word in this thread should appropriately be,................AND! :grin:

That depends on what your defintion of "and" is.

 

[iwire]

the last word in this thread should appropriately be,................AND! :grin:

:grin: ..........................

 

[steve66]

We either have to ignore the word "AND", or we have to ignore an entire paragraph.

I find it easier to believe the CMP's got one word wrong, than to believe they put in an entire paragraph that we can't use.

 

[jusme123]

we either have to ignore the word "and", or we have to ignore an entire paragraph.

I find it easier to believe the cmp's got one word wrong, than to believe they put in an entire paragraph that we can't use.

.......and