Burrito Q: Fastening of EMT

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

Burrito Q: Fastening of EMT

  • Total voters
    72
Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
If you look at the ROP I posted it seems the code making panel considers a truss to be a framing member.

I have never seen a metal truss arrive on site in individual pieces, it is as a whole a framing member.
Click to expand...

No Bob ,what arives is something made out of frameing members. Using your logic if a wall comes preassembled out of 2 x 4 's you will it an opening in the frame between studs.
Where it is made or how it arrives changes nothing
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
No Bob ,what arives is something made out of frameing members. Using your logic if a wall comes preassembled out of 2 x 4 's you will it an opening in the frame between studs.
Where it is made or how it arrives changes nothing
Click to expand...

Can we get a translator? :D

Roger
 
hardworkingstiff said:
If you are correct, then there would be no reason at all to but B in the code since (according to your logic) we still need to comply with A.

Sorry Sir, I think you are......... not correct. :)


Edit: If you look at the handbook (yes I know it's not "code", but it is pretty much accepted by AHJ's), it sends you to look at the commentary following 342.30(B)(4). If you are going to approach this subject with an open mind, you must ask why are they sending me to that commentary? I interpret it to mean the same logic applies to EMT, why else would they send you to that commentary?
Click to expand...

B is very much needed as they want more than just A and that is why they put B in it.
The want it SECURED AND SUPPORTED not either one.
If they had in mind either would do they would have said OR
Major words in NEC and used all the way threw it is SHALL , SHALL NOT, AND ,OR
They are what this disagreement is all about. Ask a lawyer to read this, matters not if he knows anything about electric. The text says AND that is all that could be inforced.
Tell me where it says i can overlook that one little word.
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
No Bob ,what arives is something made out of frameing members.
Click to expand...

An assembled truss is framing member, if you want to say it is made of a lot of smaller framing members thats cool but it still is as a whole a framing member.

Using your logic if a wall comes preassembled out of 2 x 4 's you will it an opening in the frame between studs.
Click to expand...

Yes I would.
 
"Originally Posted by Mike Holt
Q 3. When EMT is installed within metal studs and it is not resting on the bottom of the opening, is additional support required?

A 3. Horizontal runs of EMT is considered supported by openings through framing members where securely fastened within 3 ft of termination points [358.30(B)]. The key word here is "supported". If the raceway is not resting on the framing member, then it is not supported. This does not mean that the conduit must rest on every framing member. As long as it is resting on one framing member every 10' and it is securely fastened within 3' of the tubing termination points, the installation complies with the NEC.

Horizontal runs of EMT is considered SUPPORTED by openings through framing members
And i agree it is SUPPORTED and nothing more
 
roger said:
And that is all that's required. Gee, what's all the arguing about?

Roger
Click to expand...
Did you not read A you must comply with both so no that is NOT all it requires

I prefer to call this a disagreement.

We seem to be down to just this one point of do we need A and B change that AND to OR and i will jump ship
 
roger said:
As well as Mark Earley, Jeff Sargent, Joseph Sheehan, and William Buss.

Roger
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, when I used them for my argument that you could down size the feeders, using the same book you're quoting, your words were something to the effect that "the handbook isn't code".

Oh how we pick and choose.:)
 
charlie b said:
Perhaps the words in the code are wrong, if they do not accurately convey what the CMP desires them to say. Have I not said all along that my views are based solely on the words, as written?
Click to expand...
The one item that puzzles me about the results of this debate is that the genesis of the debate was, "What exactly do the actual words in the codebook require?" I think it's readily apparent that the words require more than intended, yet the majority is making their stand on the intent.

By Charlie's Rule, (A) requires the EMT to be strapped.

I was thinking of this thread today, as I lost a burrito to 110.26. :D
 
charlie b said:
They might. But they don't have to. All we know is what they did say, and what they did say was, "Disapproved, because you didn't say 'Mother may I.' "I am not wrong. Perhaps the words in the code are wrong, if they do not accurately convey what the CMP desires them to say. Have I not said all along that my views are based solely on the words, as written?
Click to expand...

Just possably the words they used are what they meant it to say.
Now wouldn't that be something.
 
cowboyjwc said:
Wait a minute, when I used them for my argument that you could down size the feeders, using the same book you're quoting, your words were something to the effect that "the handbook isn't code".

Oh how we pick and choose.:)
Click to expand...

John, you need to go back and read what I posted, I never said their commentary was code did I? What I said was they felt the same as Mike and the poll majority.

Roger
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top