344.30 supporting T condulets

[Isaiah]

Does this section require a RMC Tee condulet fitting to be supported on ALL THREE SIDES within 3’ feet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Isaiah]

Does this section require a RMC Tee condulet fitting to be supported on ALL THREE SIDES within 3’ feet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m surprised no one has addressed this yet.
It seems to me the answer is “yes” since each side of the fitting represents a separate conduit run.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ActionDave]

You are correct.

 

[Isaiah]

You are correct.

Dave, field is saying if the T is the same size as the conduit on all three sides the 3’-5’ rule doesn’t apply. They saying only when a reducer is included that 344.30 applies.
Have you ever heard of this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

See if this exception applies:

314.23(E) Raceway-Supported Enclosure, Without Devices, Luminaires, or Lampholders. An enclosure that does not contain a device(s), other than splicing devices, or supports a luminaire(s), a lampholder, or other equipment and is supported by entering raceways shall not exceed 1650 cm3 (100 in.3) in size. It shall have threaded entries or identified hubs. It shall be supported by two or more conduits threaded wrenchtight into
the enclosure or hubs. Each conduit shall be secured within 900 mm (3 ft) of the enclosure, or within 450 mm (18 in.) of the enclosure if all conduit entries are on the same side.
Exception: The following wiring methods shall be permitted to support a conduit body of any size, including a conduit body constructed with only one conduit entry, provided that the trade size of the conduit body is not larger than the largest trade size of the conduit or tubing:
(1) Intermediate metal conduit, Type IMC
(2) Rigid metal conduit, Type RMC
(3) Rigid polyvinyl chloride conduit, Type PVC
(4) Reinforced thermosetting resin conduit, Type RTRC
(5) Electrical metallic tubing, Type EMT

 

[Isaiah]

See if this exception applies:

It appears only one support for the T is required (within 3 feet) since the other 2 conduit entries will act as support - if the T and conduits are all the same size.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

It appears only one support for the T is required (within 3 feet) since the other 2 conduit entries will act as support - if the T and conduits are all the same size.

Where are you seeing that one support is required?

 

[Isaiah]

Where are you seeing that one support is required?

It doesn’t state that it only one is required . It’s just my interpretation.
Please let me know if you see it differently

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

It doesn’t state that it only one is required . It’s just my interpretation.
Please let me know if you see it differently

Nothing in the exception in post #5 requires a support of one of the entries.

 

[Isaiah]

Nothing in the exception in post #5 requires a support of one of the entries.

Ok if that is the case, we are back to supporting conduit per Table 344.30(B),e.g. 1” C supported @12’ intervals etc
But Isn’t there a conflict between 314.23(E) and 344.30(A) which clearly states RMC shall be supported within 3’ of each conduit body?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

Ok if that is the case, we are back to supporting conduit per Table 344.30(B),e.g. 1” C supported @12’ intervals etc
But Isn’t there a conflict between 314.23(E) and 344.30(A) which clearly states RMC shall be supported within 3’ of each conduit body?

There is, but 314.23(E) also allows a threaded hub box to be supported by the raceways even though 344.30(A) states that it needs to be supported within 3' of the box. I'm guessing that were supposed to think that 314.23(E) overrides 344.30. Years ago (2017 ROP) I wrote a proposal to remove conduit bodies from 344.30(A). Take a look at the substantiation and their resolution and tell me what you think.

Public Input No. 3976-NFPA 70-2014 [ Section No. 344.30(A) ]
(A) Securely Fastened.
RMC shall be secured in accordance with one of the following:
(1) RMC shall be securely fastened within 900 mm (3 ft) of each outlet box, junction box, device box, cabinet, conduit body, or other conduit termination.
(2) Fastening 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).
(3) Where approved, conduit shall not be required to be securely fastened within 900 mm (3 ft) of the service head for above-the-roof termination of a mast.
Statement of Problem and Substantiation for Public Input
Substantiation: This section is in direct conflict with section 314.23(E)Exception which permits the raceway of the same trade size as the conduit body to provide the support. Removing the words "conduit body" from this section will clarify that the same trade size raceway can be used to support a conduit body via 314.23(E)Exception(2).
Submitter Information Verification
Submitter Full Name: robert meier
Organization:
NA
Street Address:
City:
State:
Zip:
Submittal Date:
Wed Nov 05 17:45:19 EST 2014
Committee Statement
Resolution: Although 314.23(E) allows the conduit body to be unsupported, the raceway is required to be secured within 3 ft of the conduit body. The exception referenced is only applicable to conduit bodies of the same size as the raceway.

 

[Isaiah]

There is, but 314.23(E) also allows a threaded hub box to be supported by the raceways even though 344.30(A) states that it needs to be supported within 3' of the box. I'm guessing that were supposed to think that 314.23(E) overrides 344.30. Years ago (2017 ROP) I wrote a proposal to remove conduit bodies from 344.30(A). Take a look at the substantiation and their resolution and tell me what you think.

Well, I agree with your PI completely. Since 344.30(A) will result in a lot of rework out here, I’m going to stick with 314.23(E), Exception (2)
thanks for this valuable feedback!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaggedben]

Dave, field is saying if the T is the same size as the conduit on all three sides the 3’-5’ rule doesn’t apply. They saying only when a reducer is included that 344.30 applies.

That's nonsense. Just read 344.30, it applies quite broadly to all RMC installations and there are no exceptions.

See if this exception applies: [314.23(E)]

That exception just says you don't have to attach the conduit body itself to the structure if you support it with the raceway. 344.30(A)(1) tells you how close you have to support it to the conduit body (3ft).

 

[jaggedben]

That's nonsense. Just read 344.30, it applies quite broadly to all RMC installations and there are no exceptions.

They basically have it completely backwards. The conduit always has to be supported. If reducers are used, the conduit body itself also has to be attached to the structure.

 

[Isaiah]

That's nonsense. Just read 344.30, it applies quite broadly to all RMC installations and there are no exceptions.


That exception just says you don't have to attach the conduit body itself to the structure if you support it with the raceway. 344.30(A)(1) tells you how close you have to support it to the conduit body (3ft).

Does this mean a conduit body (such as a T condulet) has to have a support installed at all 3 entry points within 3’?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

If reducers are used, the conduit body itself also has to be attached to the structure.

Conduit bodies have no means to attach them to anything. How would one mount it to the structure drill holes in it?

 

[david]

The exception dosnt mention the 18 in or 36 in's so how does the exception change that at all?

 

[Dale001289]

Dont you wish Code sections were written so you could actually understand them? Where does it state the conduit body itself must be attached to the structure?

 

[jaggedben]

Conduit bodies have no means to attach them to anything. How would one mount it to the structure drill holes in it?

Is it prohibited to drill a hole in it? I think I've actually seen that done once or twice. It's a good question. But it doesn't change the fact that the exception in 314.23(E) is an exception to a requirement to support enclosures, not an exception to a requirement to support conduit.

 

[jaggedben]

Dont you wish Code sections were written so you could actually understand them? Where does it state the conduit body itself must be attached to the structure?

Arguably 314.23(A) but it's all a bit vague.