Workmanship in conduit runs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mustangx3

Member
Location
Global
There's a question on how some EMT was installed running sideways (about a 30 degree angle) along a wall to shorten the run vice going straight up the wall to the ceiling then doing a 90 over to the panel. Everyone believes it's pretty darn ugly having conduit running all weird angles like spaghetti but is there an actual code or something that would "force" the contractor to run the EMT in a "more eye pleasing fashion" like straight up walls vertically? Something to follow the building lines?
 
my guess this probably is a matter of workmenship and training. 110.12 is the usual area of the NEC people go to to address such issues but it is difficult to apply (beauty is in the eye of the beholder)

I am not aware of another area in the Code to address your concerns without a visual. It is possible that a picture will display a violation on this site. There are a lot of eyes.
 
See NEC 110.12.

Personally I wouldn't re-hire a company that's willing to install conduit in the fashion presented--just to save a buck! To me it's cutting corners, yet that's just me!:roll:
 
Mustangx3 said:
Here's a photo of an area... no reason the conduit couldn't go straight up to the ceiling.
Click to expand...

How about the end of the raceway needed to get moved because of the equipment on the left was in the way? Instead of replacing the entire run, they just removed the last section and replaced it.
 
that looks like the conduit was stubbed out of the ceiling before the equipment was installed, then it had to move over a bit because the equipment was in the way. Better they did it this way vs rerouting the run above the drop ceiling.....
 
Mustangx3 said:
Everyone believes it's pretty darn ugly having conduit running all weird angles like spaghetti but is there an actual code or something that would "force" the contractor to run the EMT in a "more eye pleasing fashion" like straight up walls vertically? Something to follow the building lines?
Click to expand...

Nope. As long as it's secured/supported within NEC guidelines, it can be run like spaghetti and there is nothing you can do about it. Job specs may dictate otherwise, but barring that, the NEC "workmanship" clause is a weak argument at best.
 
For what it's worth the NFPA manual of style (a document that helps with how the codes are written and laid out) list "Neat and workmanlike" as vague and possibly unenforceable.

IMO as long as the customer is happy and the rules for support are followed there is no issue at all.
 
peter d said:
Nope. As long as it's secured/supported within NEC guidelines, it can be run like spaghetti and there is nothing you can do about it. Job specs may dictate otherwise, but barring that, the NEC "workmanship" clause is a weak argument at best.
Click to expand...

I agree." Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and Art. 100 has no definition
for "Beauty", Neat, or workmanship. In my eye my conduit runs are "beautiful"
neat, level and functional, and IMO and my inspectors opinion
NEC compliant. :smile:
 
peter d said:
Nope. As long as it's secured/supported within NEC guidelines, it can be run like spaghetti and there is nothing you can do about it. Job specs may dictate otherwise, but barring that, the NEC "workmanship" clause is a weak argument at best.
Click to expand...

Below is a fairly standard phrasing in Electrical Division 16 Specifications for conduit routing:

Exposed Routings: Run parallel or at right angles to the building lines.

But as we all know, the NEC is not a design guide.
 
markstg said:
Below is a fairly standard phrasing in Electrical Division 16 Specifications for conduit routing:

Exposed Routings: Run parallel or at right angles to the building lines.
Click to expand...

If the job in question has specs there is a problem but many more jobs are done without any real specifications. :smile:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top