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.
cowboyjwc said:
I said no, because to me, "...through framing members..." means, holes, not laying on top of framing members,
Click to expand...

I think it means what you think it means but it does not seem to say what we think it should. :grin:

Also it is not on top of the framing member it is running through it. :cool:
 
cowboyjwc said:
If we are all talking about the same thing, these are usually top load joists or trusses and you cannot hang anything or lay anything on the bottom cord without the approval of the engineer.
Click to expand...

OUCH! Red tagged from left field. :)

We get on some jobs that follow that for everything but on most of our jobs 1/2" through 1.25" are routinely supported by the bottom cord.
 
iwire said:
OUCH! Red tagged from left field. :)

We get on some jobs that follow that for everything but on most of our jobs 1/2" through 1.25" are routinely supported by the bottom cord.
Click to expand...

Hey you know use "two mood" inspectors.:grin:

I didn't say you couldn't, but you may not be able to. Had one where the structural engineer said that they could only hang off of the top chord.
 
Geez, I know times are tough, but would you really want to do an install like that ? I guess running a conduit in the "V" of a bar joist is going to give it more support from lateral movement, but by the way most are reading the code section you could just put the conduit on the wide open flat section. Leaving the conduit with no side to side support, or support from uplift. It wouldn't pass here. No different then just laying it across the flat roof of a building.
 
brentk said:
358.30 Securing and supporting. EMT shall be installed as a complete system in accordance with 300.18 and shall be securely fastened in place and supported in accordance with 358.30(A) AND (B).
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Looking more closely at the wording.
  • Securely fastened in place AND supported . . . .
  • . . . in accordance with 358.30(A) AND (B).
They are saying, securely fastened in accordance with 358.30(A), since this is the paragraph that speaks about things being fastened, AND supported in accordance with 358.30(B), since this is the paragraph that speaks about things being supported. (B) is not an exception to (A), so you have to fasten every 10 feet. If, for example, the floor joists are 2 feet apart, then you can put the EMT through holes in the joists, but you have to securely fasten the EMT to the wood every fifth joist board.

I vote no.
 
The EMT is only required to be 'securely fastened' within 3' of box or conduit body, beyond that it only has to be supported when run through framing members. You cannot try to use A and B simultaneously.
 
charlie b said:
I agree with you. Looking more closely at the wording.
  • Securely fastened in place AND supported . . . .
  • . . . in accordance with 358.30(A) AND (B).
They are saying, securely fastened in accordance with 358.30(A), since this is the paragraph that speaks about things being fastened, AND supported in accordance with 358.30(B), since this is the paragraph that speaks about things being supported. (B) is not an exception to (A), so you have to fasten every 10 feet. If, for example, the floor joists are 2 feet apart, then you can put the EMT through holes in the joists, but you have to securely fasten the EMT to the wood every fifth joist board.

I vote no.
Click to expand...

I agree and voted no to compliant as well.

iwire said:
The EMT is only required to be 'securely fastened' within 3' of box or conduit body, beyond that it only has to be supported when run through framing members. You cannot try to use A and B simultaneously.
Click to expand...

I don't agree..anytime the Code says "AND" it means both (or all) conditions stated must be complied with. Unless you can show me a section without any "AND" conditions for this install that trumps what has already been referenced I stand by my answer. :grin:
 
iwire said:
You cannot try to use A and B simultaneously.
Click to expand...
This is the key to my disagreement with the majority, please elaborate.

As I see it, both "A" and "B" apply equally to the EMT, so therefore B's existence is fairly moot: as all conduits that are fastened will necessarily be supported in the process of fastening.

cowboyjwc said:
Have a picture?
Click to expand...
Attached is one from the 2005 handbook (kudos to those who pointed that out.)
 

Attachments

  • IMC.jpg
    IMC.jpg
    87.7 KB · Views: 0
mxslick said:
..anytime the Code says "AND" it means both (or all) conditions stated must be complied with.
Click to expand...

Of course that is supposed to be true.

In this case I can't explain it other than IMPO it is an error. See my answer to George about why I feel it is an error.

My opinion remains the same, compliant.
 
George Stolz said:
This is the key to my disagreement with the majority, please elaborate.

As I see it, both "A" and "B" apply equally to the EMT, so therefore B's existence is fairly moot: as all conduits that are fastened will necessarily be supported in the process of fastening.


Attached is one from the 2005 handbook (kudos to those who pointed that out.)
Click to expand...


The picture from the handbook references IMC, not EMT. So it is non-compliant. So far the minority is correct....:grin:
 
iwire said:
Of course that is supposed to be true.

In this case I can't explain it other than IMPO it is an error. See my answer to George about why I feel it is an error.

My opinion remains the same, compliant.
Click to expand...

We agree on the first part.

Is it an error? Possibly. Code is not perfect, we all know that.

I still disagree with your opinion on compliant though. :grin:

And as I mentioned in my post above, the handbook calls out IMC, NOT EMT so I would still say no way is this compliant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top