Is EMT a conduit?
- Thread starter WirenutNH
- Start date
- Status
EMT / Conduit
EMT / Conduit
I'm not sure why the engineer would want you to give a credit.
I would think if there was no mention of the specific type of conduit, such as a detailed cable and conduit table or in project specifications stating that all conduit is to be RMC, then you should be within your right to interpret the drawings since they were subject to interpretation.
As long as your installation meets code requirements, it should not be an issue relative to construction.
However, there may be concern relative to system performance:
If you pulled separate equipment ground wires and you used compression type fittings for the EMT, I would not object as an engineer.
But, if there were no equipment ground wires pulled and you used cheaper quality EMT couplings with less surface area, I would be concerned if the circuits or feeders in question were serving sensitive electronic circuits.
That said, as an engineer, it is up to us to be very specific and not leave such matters open to interpretation.
If you competitively bid the project,I would say you have no issue.
However, if you indicated in your bid documents that you were going to supply everything as RMC and then you substituted where you felt there was a lack of detail, that would not be appropriate and you should give a credit.
Did you submit catalog cuts on the material for the Engineer to approve?
This is another way to avoid such issue before construction begins.
EMT / Conduit
I'm not sure why the engineer would want you to give a credit.
I would think if there was no mention of the specific type of conduit, such as a detailed cable and conduit table or in project specifications stating that all conduit is to be RMC, then you should be within your right to interpret the drawings since they were subject to interpretation.
As long as your installation meets code requirements, it should not be an issue relative to construction.
However, there may be concern relative to system performance:
If you pulled separate equipment ground wires and you used compression type fittings for the EMT, I would not object as an engineer.
But, if there were no equipment ground wires pulled and you used cheaper quality EMT couplings with less surface area, I would be concerned if the circuits or feeders in question were serving sensitive electronic circuits.
That said, as an engineer, it is up to us to be very specific and not leave such matters open to interpretation.
If you competitively bid the project,I would say you have no issue.
However, if you indicated in your bid documents that you were going to supply everything as RMC and then you substituted where you felt there was a lack of detail, that would not be appropriate and you should give a credit.
Did you submit catalog cuts on the material for the Engineer to approve?
This is another way to avoid such issue before construction begins.
stevebea
Senior Member
- Location
- Southeastern PA
I believe the engineer is looking for a credit not vice versa.
Tubing?Conduit?
For the sake of "the good book" and reference it has to be thought of as tubing. But in the real world it's conduit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conduit
notice the first line: "An electrical conduit is an electrical piping system used for protection and routing of electrical wiring. Electrical conduit may be made of metal, plastic, fiber, or fired clay. Flexible conduit is available for special purposes.".
works for me but for the "good book" it's tubing.
Thought please from the gurus....I believe I actually worked with "real" tubing once many years ago (high bay commercial). It was multi conductor in a tube that would/could be cut with a pipe cutter. conductors where manufactured in a
malleable /bendable tubing.
I don't know what it was called......but it think it was "tubing".
For the sake of "the good book" and reference it has to be thought of as tubing. But in the real world it's conduit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_conduit
notice the first line: "An electrical conduit is an electrical piping system used for protection and routing of electrical wiring. Electrical conduit may be made of metal, plastic, fiber, or fired clay. Flexible conduit is available for special purposes.".
works for me but for the "good book" it's tubing.
Thought please from the gurus....I believe I actually worked with "real" tubing once many years ago (high bay commercial). It was multi conductor in a tube that would/could be cut with a pipe cutter. conductors where manufactured in a
malleable /bendable tubing.
I don't know what it was called......but it think it was "tubing".
Submitted and excepted ????................yep he's being a JO. Fight him on it!
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
If conductors were already inside it is a cable type wiring method and not a raceway type method.
There is/was MC and AC cables with smooth outer sheath, that is likely what you were working with.
I essentially agree with Laszlo, but would like to add a few comments. IMO, if the issue escalates to court action, the NEC, UL, and other authoritative documents referring to EMT only as tubing will have little bearing on the decision. What will matter mostly is whether there was any deception on your part involved in establishing the contracted amount... such as knowingly bidding an amount with the impression of installing a more expensive superior conduit, then installing a less costly inferior conduit. If your bid and the awarded amount was based on installing EMT for "conduit", and fully disclosed in the bid documentation, the engineer hasn't a leg to stand on. Lacking oversight is the engineer's problem. As I see it, as long as you are on the up and up, the engineer even wanting credit is equivalent to accusing you of deception.It was submitted on and the only response from engineer was conduit shall be used, not RMC also the EMT was accepted was not noted not accepted or resubmitIf it was approved and no credit was asked for it then, you can safely tell the engineer to take a hike, or the legal equivalent of it.:lol:
If it was submitted AFTER you were awarded the Contract, you should have offered some credit. (You can still do that. It is never too late to do the right thing.....)
weressl
Esteemed Member
You mean accepted? Excepted would mean the opposite, in this case.
Stevareno
Senior Member
- Location
- Dallas, TX
I'm not going to argue why I think EMT is a conduit other than to say for me, it's a conduit until I have an AHJ tell me it's not.
I question the engineer in the OP. As stated, he did not reject the EMT submittal. Maybe he's scamming EC's.
His MO:
1. Specify "conduit".
2. Do not reject EMT submittals.
3. After job is done, claim EMT is "tubing" not "conduit".
4. ???? (How many EC's give in and give a credit to avoid litigation)
5. PROFIT!
I question the engineer in the OP. As stated, he did not reject the EMT submittal. Maybe he's scamming EC's.
His MO:
1. Specify "conduit".
2. Do not reject EMT submittals.
3. After job is done, claim EMT is "tubing" not "conduit".
4. ???? (How many EC's give in and give a credit to avoid litigation)
5. PROFIT!
Strathead
Senior Member
- Location
- Ocala, Florida, USA
- Occupation
- Electrician/Estimator/Project Manager/Superintendent
But you just did
Wingrider
Member
- Location
- Northern Virginia
What happened to the submittals
What happened to the submittals
I am an engineer working for the USG and any time we have a project with any substance, other that changing out a receptacle or adding a circuit, we insist on submittals. That is where I get the chance to accept or reject materials. If I take no exception to the submittals, then I have no basis for objecting to methods and materials later.
What happened to the submittals
I am an engineer working for the USG and any time we have a project with any substance, other that changing out a receptacle or adding a circuit, we insist on submittals. That is where I get the chance to accept or reject materials. If I take no exception to the submittals, then I have no basis for objecting to methods and materials later.
Read the first sentence of the OP
weressl
Esteemed Member
True, but his 'description' of what happened is just that, a description. He did not explain it specifically what wording was used and in what instances from either side. What I am saying is that the communication could have remained ambigous, with both parties thinking differently of what actually happened.
Let me give you an example what would have been clear.
Contractors submit with his bid: Wherever the world 'conduit' used in generic form, the installation will be completed with the tuilization of EMT with screw set couplings and fittings. EMT will serve as the EGC for the circuit.
Engineers response: The above clarification is acceptable installation for this Contract.
Not sure how it went, but it looks like the contract was excepted ...........sorry accepted........ they kept there mouth shut, had the work done, knowing they were going to bring this up the whole time....
people suk sometimes..........users!
thanks weressl for pointing out........get everything in writing.
hbiss
EC, Westchester, New York NEC: 2014
- Location
- Hawthorne, New York NEC: 2014
- Occupation
- EC
I didn't bother to read all these pages but I'll offer my $.02 anyway. As I remember, Jack Benfield invented the stuff and it was he who named it Electrical Metallic Tubing (EMT) to differentiate it from the thicker walled threaded pipe he wanted it to replace. Calling it tubing was also a marketing tactic to make it sound like it's easier to work with and install. I think the NEC is just being accurate by referring to it by it's given name and is not trying to say that it is not a conduit.
-Hal
-Hal
- Status