Article 348-13

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Article 348-13

Cant find 348.13 in 2002 NEC. Article 348 is for type FMC. Couplings are not used. Need clarification. :confused:
 
Re: Article 348-13

John and Physis, 348-13 is from pre 2002 NEC. Notice the "Dash" in lieu of the "Dot"

Here is a graphic from Mike Holt.

348-13.gif


Roger

[ August 13, 2004, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
 
Re: Article 348-13

I was kind of thinking maybe it was older. If I was so smart I should have asked!

Edit: What is the publication date for this. swapping conduit types under code numbers seems rather reckless. :eek:

[ August 13, 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: physis ]
 
Re: Article 348-13

Tom, I'm sure your right, but out of curiousity I looked up Couplings -- EMT 358.42.

Then I looked up fitting in article 100 and based on these two things I'd call a coupling a fitting.
 
Re: Article 348-13

A coupling is a "fitting" and that is one of the reasons that the word fitting was removed from the code section in question. The change was made in the 1993 code. It was never the intent to require a support within 3' of each coupling, but the use of the word fitting in the older code versions did require a support within 3' of each coupling.
Don

[ August 13, 2004, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
 
Re: Article 348-13

although not required by code it only makes sense to place the supports near where the pipe will sag,,,,,,(the coupling).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top