344.30(C) RMC Unsupported

[augie47]

My copy of the '11 draft shows the xxx.30(C) requirement as nonexistent ???

Totally embarassing.,.,, picked up he wrong ROP disk. You are correct ***.30 is not in the '011 Draft. On first glance I don't see where "unsupported" is addressed. Is it gone from 2011 ??

 

[Smart $]

Totally embarassing.,.,, picked up he wrong ROP disk. You are correct ***.30 is not in the '011 Draft. On first glance I don't see where "unsupported" is addressed. Is it gone from 2011 ??

It appears so... but we'll have to wait and see.

I never understood the necessity for the xxx.30(C) requirement. Without it, and using RMC as an example, if you install a 36" piece between boxes, it's not required to be "securely fastened" or supported. Make it 37" and it's required to be "securely fastened". Anyone with half a brain, and conditions permitting, and within reason for the conditions present, would "securely fasten" in the middle.

Yet, if the example piece were 72" long, we'd now be obligated to "securely fasten" once in the middle, or "securely fasten" twice at less than 36" inches from each end.

IMO, this is adequate for RMC. When we get into other raceway types, it should be adjusted according to the physical properties of the raceway. There really is no one blanket covers all for this scenario, no matter how hard we try to make one.

What I'd like to see is wording which somehow accepts an enclosure termination as a supporting mechanism so that "on the fly" terminations would require better support.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Not every inspector reads it that way. "The conduit must be supported within 3 ft" to some only means you CAN go up to three feet and if your conduit is less than 3 ft long, a support is still needed.
In the '11 ROPs Mike Holt mentioned in submittals for each of the ***.30 sections that, as written, (without ***.30) a 3 INCH piece of conduit would need support.
It appears the '11 draft has increased the 18" to 30".

I completely understand.