Re-poll

[don_resqcapt19]

The rule first appeared in the 1996 code as a new last paragraph in section 348-12.
The change was rejected at the proposal stage with the CMP saying that the EMT must be both supported and secured (proposal 8-125). Panel action on comment 8-83 put this rule into the code. There were no (A) and (B) subsections in 348.12 and it is very clear that this rule was intended to only require that the raceway be secured within 3' of each conduit termination when run horizontally through openings in framing members.
The original proposal would have been more restrictive than the rule that was accepted at the comment stage. It would have required that the raceway be run through bored or punched holes in vertical framing members or notches in the top of a horizontal framing member.

The section was renumbered to 348-13 for the 99 code.

The 2002 code is where the problem originated. The Chapter 3 articles were reorganized that year and the code numbering system was changed to the "parallel" numbering system as part of the reorganization.
The explanation that accompanied the reorganization proposal (8-276) stated that the supporting section was separated into two part for clarity and text was added for clarity without changing the original intent.
The original intent was that the raceway did not need to be secured, except within 3' of the conduit terminations, when it was run horizontally through openings in framing members.

 

[iwire]

The 2002 code is where the problem originated. The Chapter 3 articles were reorganized that year and the code numbering system was changed to the "parallel" numbering system as part of the reorganization.
The explanation that accompanied the reorganization proposal (8-276) stated that the supporting section was separated into two part for clarity and text was added for clarity without changing the original intent.
The original intent was that the raceway did not need to be secured, except within 3' of the conduit terminations, when it was run horizontally through openings in framing members.

Thank you Don, I only can access ROPs back to 2002.

Can you find a reasonable example of a truss being defined as a "framing member"?

Yes every time I look up in a big box store I see 100s of framing members holding up the roof.:roll:

Would you call a horizontal 'I-Beam' supporting a roof a framing member?

I would.


Now replace that I beam with a truss, is that a framing member?

IMO yes and also the opinion of the handbook authors.

well I agree it did begin with an electrician, "let there be light". Other then that I think you need to re-read 358.30 until you realize you are incorrect.

I cannot spend the rest of my life searching for what will never be found.:grin:

To me, if a truss was considered a "framing member", by builders, it would be allowed.

It seems what I have always called a 'truss' the manufactures call 'steel joists' and to me a joist has always been a framing member.

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#h...AahqfWaDA&ved=0CFMQ1QIoAg&fp=c8411ce5a7e9a208

 

[roger]

I can't do that in the Tar Heel State.

And I can say without a doubt, that statement is not true.
Read what it says, get over it! :roll:

Roger

 

[jumper]

And by the way the SOUTH won

We did? Cool
Now all we gotta do is convince 260 million other Americans of this.:grin:

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

Forget for a minute NEC and use common since. If we lay 100 feet of 1/2 inch emt on top of a suface and strap it only on the ends of the run ,just how hard would it be for someone to push it sideways and have it pull out of a coupling. This is the same conduit your using as your ground. NEC would never intended to allow this to happen because that is a clear hazard. I do believe they had in mind that the prepunched holes we see in steel studs or the ones we make in wood or steel to limit the distance EMT could move to such a small amount as to not allow it to seperate at couplings. I do not think they had in mind to call the typical steel truss a framing member. Yes a truss is made from framing members but the itself is a truss not a framing member. In a wall i really do not see a reason to strap it every 10 feet.
Now all of the above is simply and only what in my opinion was what they intended.

Now we must look at how they wrote this. And it was flat out sloppy work. But they did seem to want to seperate two key issues ,that being support and securing. Had they considered them to be one and the same there would been no need to have an A and B. We can argue or disagree forever over why they seperated this but fact is they created A and B and told us in clear english to comply with A and B, that means both not one or the other. Had they used OR there would be no question.
So we must assume before a book is published that they carefully check every letter ,punctuation and word they used. This document was intended to be adopted as law. They would not acidently said AND where the meant OR.

We need to stop using the handbook, pictures , and any opinions made from others. That includes with no disrespect Mike Holts literature and training manuels as the only inforceable word are what we have in NEC.
An inspector might and often do form an opinion on what NEC means on every thing in the NEC. National Electrical CODE is what it says, not SUGGESTIONS, INSTRUCTIONS,OPINIONS.

We do seem to all agree on poorly written. And that is why we are split on this pole.
Both sides believe they are right and as George said the pole results would not change. I seriously thought they would.

Basically we are at a standstill. There are all the typical problems coming to surface such as what NEC means as a frame member. Even words such as support and secured are not very well defined. The only fix is for the CMP to see there mistake either way.

If we believe that a surface such as we find in the openings of a truss are able to be the sole means of keeping securing and supporting conduit then i guess we can start running conduit across the finished roofs of buildings without doing anything as they are support for every inch of it. Perhaps even on top of the ground because that will hold it too.

As has been said many time on every arguement THE NEC SAYS WHAT IT SAYS

 

[Volta]

Thank you Don, I only can access ROPs back to 2002.



Yes every time I look up in a big box store I see 100s of framing members holding up the roof.:roll:

Yes, thousands even .

Would you call a horizontal 'I-Beam' supporting a roof a framing member?

I would.

Yup, sure would. It is formed as as single element, no matter the size. It is installed as a member of a larger structure.

Now replace that I beam with a truss, is that a framing member?

Not in any definition I've found. Have you found one yet ? I do find innstances of them called "structural members". But as far as I can tell, in normal architectural or structural terminology, the truss is the frame, the straight elements are the members.

IMO yes and also the opinion of the handbook authors.

I cannot spend the rest of my life searching for what will never be found.:grin:

Oh, I knew you were wise!

It seems what I have always called a 'truss' the manufactures call 'steel joists' and to me a joist has always been a framing member.

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#h...AahqfWaDA&ved=0CFMQ1QIoAg&fp=c8411ce5a7e9a208

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

A truss is made from members. In itself it is a single prefabed item called a truss.
The air openings are just that , they are air.
How thick is that opening of air ?
What can air support ?
Your using the framing members to hold your conduit not the air opening.
So your not running it threw the members your resting it on top of a frame memer

 

[jusme123]

Another long time inspector feels like the majority.





I will not say you are wrong I will simply say I am correct. :grin:

now I have to go through my code book AND remove all the ANDs, as they are now insignificant AND moot. (A --- B) please fill in the blanks

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

now I have to go through my code book AND remove all the ANDs, as they are now insignificant AND moot. (A --- B) please fill in the blanks

That would be great, just think of how much this will save us on work and (oops can't use that word) material. When the inspector points out that meaningless word we will just tell him that word does not count.

 

[hardworkingstiff]

Jim

Jim

Jim,

Was that you that got the "pitbull" handle a couple of years ago or someone else?

 

[roger]

Jim,

Was that you that got the "pitbull" handle a couple of years ago or someone else?

That was Mike Whitt, AKA jwelectric. I was thinking about him the other day, he wasn't at the NC electrical institute this year which he and his wife never miss. I hope he is alright.

Roger

 

[iwire]

now I have to go through my code book AND remove all the ANDs, as they are now insignificant AND moot. (A --- B) please fill in the blanks

I suggest a sharpie. :grin:

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

I suggest a sharpie. :grin:

Just use wite out and change them all to OR

No the pit bull wasn't me LOL are you suggesting i fit that one ? LOL
I don't bite i just bark

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Forget for a minute NEC and use common since. If we lay 100 feet of 1/2 inch emt on top of a suface and strap it only on the ends of the run ,just how hard would it be for someone to push it sideways and have it pull out of a coupling. This is the same conduit your using as your ground. NEC would never intended to allow this to happen because that is a clear hazard. I do believe they had in mind that the prepunched holes we see in steel studs or the ones we make in wood or steel to limit the distance EMT could move to such a small amount as to not allow it to seperate at couplings. I do not think they had in mind to call the typical steel truss a framing member. Yes a truss is made from framing members but the itself is a truss not a framing member. In a wall i really do not see a reason to strap it every 10 feet.
Now all of the above is simply and only what in my opinion was what they intended.

...

There were proposals made for all of the raceway articles for the 2005 code to address this issue. All such proposals were rejected and the panel comment was published in proposal 8-17. The panel referenced this comment for all of the other identical proposals. Proposal 8-133 was the one that directly addressed EMT.

8-17 Log #349 NEC-P08
(342-30(B)(4))
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Glenn W. Zieseniss Crown Point, IN
Recommendation:
Revise text to read:
(4) Horizontal runs of IMC supported by openings which horizontal opening is not larger than 3 times the nominal inside diamter of
the raceway through framing members at intervals not exceeding 3 m (10 ft) and securely fastened within 900 mm (3 ft) of termination
points shall be permitted.
Substantiation:
Some openings may be more than 10 feet in width. I have seen several installations where the raceways looked like snakes between
termination points in the roof trusses. The 3 times the nominal ID of the raceway of the opening in the framing members would constrain
the raceway to an appearance as required by NEC 110.12 (1st sentence). Workers installing other items or equipment can easily deflect
the raceway either purposely or accidentally while doing their work. Painters or persons installing advertisements may disturb the
electrical raceway position. The 3 times the nominal ID would allow some minor deflections of the raceway if the framing member
openings are not in a straight line.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:
Insufficient technical substantiation has been provided to support the change.
Number Eligible to Vote: 14
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 13
Ballot Not Returned: 1 Cox

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Thank you Don, I only can access ROPs back to 2002.
...

I have paper and electronic copies back to the 2002 and paper only back to the 1984 code. It would be nice if the NFPA would make the older TCRs and TCDs available electronically. The Technical Committee Report is now known as the Report On Proposals and the Technical Committee Documentation is now known as the Report On Comments. The document name change was made for the 95 code.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

"the raceway to an appearance as required by NEC 110.12 (1st sentence). Workers installing other items or equipment can easily deflect
the raceway either purposely or accidentally while doing their work. Painters or persons installing advertisements may disturb the
electrical raceway position. "

That is why we need them to be secured. Do we really want others to be able to push our conduit out of the way ?

If point A to point B is exactly 100 feet and perfectly straight we have 100 feet of EMT.
Now if in the middle we push it over 3 feet out of the way of something we now need 100 feet PLUS some to make up for the added distance. How to you think that will happen ? EMT does not stretch, but couplings get pulled on, some come loose. Not smart on something we want as a ground.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
That is why we need them to be secured. Do we really want others to be able to push our conduit out of the way ?
...

Apparently the CMP does not see any issue with the conduit being pushed out of the way.

 

[iwire]

That is why we need them to be secured. Do we really want others to be able to push our conduit out of the way ?

If you want to secure them you may, the NEC just provides the minimums. I am surprised they do not have something about the size of the hole the raceway passes through but at this time they do not.

Keep in mind we are directly allowed to fish EMT into place, how is that on the couplings?

 

[Volta]

If you want to secure them you may, the NEC just provides the minimums. I am surprised they do not have something about the size of the hole the raceway passes through but at this time they do not.

If they expect it to be an actual hole, probably a non-issue.

If they expect it to be an opening in a collection of members, they would likely word it differently.

Keep in mind we are directly allowed to fish EMT into place, how is that on the couplings?

Oh, I think when you reread that exception you'll know how it is :grin:.

 

[acrwc10]

Thank you Don, I only can access ROPs back to 2002.



Yes every time I look up in a big box store I see 100s of framing members holding up the roof.:roll:

Would you call a horizontal 'I-Beam' supporting a roof a framing member?

I would.


Now replace that I beam with a truss, is that a framing member?

IMO yes and also the opinion of the handbook authors.




I cannot spend the rest of my life searching for what will never be found.:grin:





It seems what I have always called a 'truss' the manufactures call 'steel joists' and to me a joist has always been a framing member.

http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#h...AahqfWaDA&ved=0CFMQ1QIoAg&fp=c8411ce5a7e9a208

If you look in the 2009 IRC article "R802.10.1 Wood truss design drawings" .........."Truss design drawings shall include, at a minimum, the information specified below.........#8.Lumber size, species and grade for each member...........

In the 2006 IBC it is in Section 2303.4.1.2.............#14 Lumber size, species and grade for each member...........
There is a definition for "prefabricated wood I-joists"and "Structural composite lumber" being "Structural Members" in section 2302.

In section 2206 of the IBC "steel Joists" are refereed to as "open web steel joists and joist girders" but NOT FRAMING MEMBERS.

Throughout these sections they are refereed to as "TRUSSES" not framing members. Seeing as the NEC does not have a definition for a "framing member" the most logical place to find the definition is the building code.
Now if the pieces of the truss are considered to be the "members" the whole truss is not a member. It is a truss or a girder.