2008 proposal for raceways

Status
Not open for further replies.
ryan_618

ryan_618

Senior Member
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
What do you guys think?

342 IMC, 344 RMC, 352 RNC, 358 EMT .30 new part (C)


(C) Unsupported raceways: Type xxxxxx shall be permitted to be unsupported where the raceway is not more than 900 mm (3 ft) in length and remains in unbroken lengths (without coupling). Such raceway shall terminate in an outlet box, junction box, device box, cabinet, or other termination at each end of the raceway.


Substantiation: Unsupported raceways are violations of the code that occur everyday. As written, a 3? length of conduit between enclosures is required to be supported, despite the fact that it adds little if any structural value to the system. Quite often, particularly with conduit nipples, securing and supporting a raceway shorter than 36? is not possible. Furthermore, securing and supporting is of little value on lengths less than 36? where the conduit terminates at a box on each end, where the box is installed and supported in compliance with its applicable code section.

This proposal is written with the parallel effect of code sections that have been strived for in chapter 3, and matches the numbering system used in the cable articles. It also uses existing text taken from both the cable articles and the raceway articles.
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

I like this change and think it has good merit. I have seen installations where the stress of the support on short conduit runs acts to pull the connector away from the enclosure. In some cases, this deforms the enclosure or weakens the integrity of the remaining knock-outs.
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

I think its a good idea to have the code make sense. My guess is that the vast majority of such small segments of conduit are usually unsupported except by their fittings anyway so this would just codify existing practice.

I might want to think about this a little bit for some set screw type EMT fittings though. They already seem cheesy to me, but for stuff that is screwed together, I see no problem.
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

I would rather leave this one alone. If the AHJ wants to relax the provisions, he may do that. I am thinking about a short run of EMT between two boxes that has a kick in each end. This needs a strap installed or it can (will?) work loose over time. Without that language, you can not enforce the installation of the strap. If it is a straight run, the AHJ can just walk by. :D
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

It would be very easy to change the proposal to include the words "straight" or "unbent". As an AHJ, I don't like having to turn my head on installations, although I do it everyday (just like every other AHJ does). There is no reason to have to support a small length of pipe that has no bends or no couplings, in my opinion.
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

Just a thought: Do the outlet boxes, junction boxes, device boxes...have to be supported? Maybe that's required eleswhere in the code?

Steve
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

There had ought to be some lee way on supporting boxes from conduits.Most turn a short 90 on the end of the conduit and stub it out into the ceiling space for speed of roughin to keep ahead of the sheetrockers.But after the sheetrock is up there may not be a support close for them to support the boxes and they try to mount the box on the stubout because the adjacent stubouts may be 2 or 3 feet from each other,but this is a code violaion.but at the same time it is sometimes very difficult or or even ugly to try to offset back to the wall and back out to the box in that short of a run.
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

358 says that EMT must be supported within 3 feet of the box or -Exception- within 5 feet on an 'unbroken length'. it doesnt say that a box cannot be a support.
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

Originally posted by izak:
358 says that EMT must be supported within 3 feet of the box or -Exception- within 5 feet on an 'unbroken length'. it doesnt say that a box cannot be a support.
Click to expand...
Time out. If we're going to quote code, let's quote the whole exception:

Exception No. 1: Fastening of unbroken lengths shall be permitted to be increased to a distance of 1.5 m (5 ft) where structural members do not readily permit fastening within 900 mm (3 ft).
Click to expand...
So, what about a 6" nipple that goes between two panels?
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

So, what about a 6" nipple that goes between two panels?
Click to expand...
I vote for a piece of string (listed string, of course) tied back to a support. :D

To be serious though, the reason the Code is so big now is because of things like this. Why can't the AHJ use a bit of common since and ignore things of this nature without another rule to "require" or "permit" something? I can see the Code getting so large that it will have to be broken into volume one and volume two.

I am really interested in the answers you guys post to this question. :D
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

I say Again! what in the code says that 'securely fastened' cannot be terminated in a box?

IE: 3 foot of EMT between 2 boxes?

or even 5 feet of emt(with no coupling) between boxes in a bar-joist construction where it is nearly ALWAYS impractical to fasten a peice of conduit between the joists

I consider up to 3 feet unbroken length between boxes to be 'securely fastened', especially when not 'exposed to physical damage'
like...
above a ceiling
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

This is very interesting. There are really two different perspectives here.
1. Inspectors
2. Installers

I can see how Ryan has this in mind, as an inspector he sees this (and many other issues) everyday. Not only as a safety issue, but protecting his butt as well.


Now an installer, installs this type of installation everyday and most will install it so the integrity of the conduit is fine...but some installations are not as good :D - so does an inspector knock one job and okay another?

Because the NEC is a legal document when adopted, it will help not only guide the inspector, but relieve him of some of the 'judgemental' decisions - which are not always cut and dry - and can be difficult to enforce/not enforce.

I totally agree with Charlie about how the NEC is headed towards two volumes, but I believe that it is a few code cycles away anyway.
The situation with this industry is detail - detailed requirements do make it easier - how many times have we heard on this site - 'spell it out'.

Ryan
I might add in the proposal: and not subject to physical damage.
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

Originally posted by izak:
I say Again! what in the code says that 'securely fastened' cannot be terminated in a box?

IE: 3 foot of EMT between 2 boxes?

or even 5 feet of emt(with no coupling) between boxes in a bar-joist construction where it is nearly ALWAYS impractical to fasten a peice of conduit between the joists

I consider up to 3 feet unbroken length between boxes to be 'securely fastened', especially when not 'exposed to physical damage'
like...
above a ceiling
Click to expand...
I do agree with this post but, I've seen many times where other trades will set up ladders to work though a ceiling. And working in the ceiling will use conduit/emt, where its supported by a rod or caddy beam clamp next to beam use it for a handrail.I can't count who many times I've had to holler into the ceiling about the useing of my raceways for handrails to support/ballance/ steady their body-weight.It's like a magnet to their hand. Only for it to look like "Fido's Butt" afterwards,with the possiblity of a "Mexican Manufactured Fitting", that now has a loose locknut as left over product due stress on the 3-'5 nipple between j-boxes.While the raceways is a major portion of grnding path even though a EGC is present.
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

There is, I believe such a thing as "meeting the intent of the code". I agree that the code is already too big. It is impossible to codify every detail of an installation. An AHJ should be able to judge whether a length of pipe is adequately supported under the existing conditions even though technically in violation by the "letter" of the applicable article. I see Ryan's point but everything cannot always be black anad white. Just my 2?
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

Now some of you want us(inspectors) to make a judgement.
:p :p

I'm talking about well reasoned things here, not confusing service laterals with any old underground run, and requiring marking tape above( don't mean to pick on iwire here put it's the one example that comes to mind)

Gotta go will finish later

[ October 26, 2004, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: sandsnow ]
 
Re: 2008 proposal for raceways

So Larry, are you scared to make a judgment call using your education, experience, and common sense; or are you one who has to have everything already approved (listed or in print) for you to sign off on an installation?

The above qualifications (education, experience, and common sense;) are the most important tools an inspector can have and this should not be misinterpreted as making their own rules or code.

Being in the position of inspector and having those who are knowledgeable of the applicable codes "jumping" up and down when you are wrong shouldn't surprise you.

Think about it, if you didn't have any government organization backing you, and you were right, but had to let the electrician tell you that you were going to do it his/her way, you would jump up and down too. ;)

Roger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top