Chinese Conduit?

[K8MHZ]

Political correctness has nothing to do with it.

Politicians use conduit.

http://fairwisconsin.com/conduit

 

[dkidd]

While Art 100 defines raceway, it doesn't define conduit. In absence of a formal definition the NFPA Manual of Style refers us to the Merriam-Webster, 11th Collegiate Dictionary, which defines conduit as

EMT is defined in 358.2.

 

[rbalex]

EMT is defined in 358.2.

Yeah - so?

 

[K8MHZ]

EMT is defined in 358.2.

And RMC is defined in 344.2

Neither definition contains the word 'conduit'. (Except in the name).

Other than being part of a name, the NEC does not make a distinction between conduit and tubing, nor do they define either.

 

[iwire]

Other than being part of a name, the NEC does not make a distinction between conduit and tubing,

IMO the NEC does make the distinction and I gave an example were it required a code change to fix.

 

[rbalex]

IMO the NEC does make the distinction and I gave an example were it required a code change to fix.

I believe Augie's post #29 addressed that eloquently.

So, if one elects to run a 2 x 2 square raceway there would be no
ambient derating ?

IMO the CMP got it wrong and took the easy way out by accepting the Proposal. They should have "Accepted in Principal" and simply said "raceways" rather than "circular raceways." Of course, IMO they should have rejected 310.15(2)(c) when it was originally proposed, but that's a different debate.

It seems to me that we are dealing with common local practice "terms" ("This is what we call it around here") not a proper analysis of the Code.

 

[iwire]

I believe Augie's post #29 addressed that eloquently.
IMO the CMP got it wrong and took the easy way out by accepting the Proposal. They should have "Accepted in Principal" and simply said "raceways" rather than "circular raceways."

I agree and have not taken the time to look at the ROP ROCs for it but why did they obviously leave out a NEMA 3R or 4X wireway?

But none of that changes my point that the CMP does not seem to consider EMT to be a conduit in the NEC sense.

 

[rbalex]

This was the Proposal:

6-66 Log #2751 NEC-P06 Final Action: Accept
(310.15(B)(2)(c))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Travis Lindsey, Travis Lindsey Consulting Services
Recommendation: Revise text to read as follows:
310.15(B)(2)(c) Conduits Circular Raceways Exposed to Sunlight on
Rooftops
Where conductors or cables are installed in conduits circular raceways
exposed to direct sunlight on or above rooftops, the adjustments shown in
Table 310.15(B)(2)(c) shall be added to the outdoor temperature to determine
the applicable ambient temperature for application of the correction factors in
Table 310.16 and Table 310.18.
Substantiation: This proposal is intended to clarify the use of the term
?conduit?, as used in the accepted 2008 NEC proposal, to include all types of
circular raceways. Original testing was performed using electrical metallic
tubing and other raceways. The term ?conduit? is not defined in the NEC. This
proposal will ensure that both of these constructions are understood to be
included. The term circular raceways will cover all wiring methods tested.
Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 9 Negative: 2
Explanation of Negative:
HUDDLESTON, JR., R.: The Panel should have rejected this Proposal. If
changes were needed to include EMT as conduit, a Proposal should have been
submitted to Panel 8 to mention the very common trade name of EMT
(thinwall conduit).
HUNTER, R.: The research isn?t complete and has had no insulation failures
reported. It has not had third party substantiation, and has been very limited as
to type of wiring methods tested. There are other wiring methods which may
be used on rooftops that haven?t been addressed. Inspectors who I checked with
that work in the southwestern United States haven?t witnessed any rooftop
failures due to insulation deterioration.
Comment on Affirmative:
KENT, G.: The submitter needed a broader range of test to eliminate ?cables?

Judge it as you wish.

 

[rbalex]

And the Comments (all by the TCC)

_______________________________________________________________
6-28 Log #99 NEC-P06 Final Action: Accept
(Table 310.15(B)(2)(c))
_______________________________________________________________
TCC Action: The Technical Correlating Committee directs that the title
of Table 310.15(B)(3)(c) be changed to correlate with the action taken on
Proposal 6-66 and this comment.
Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on National Electrical Code?,
Comment on Proposal No: 6-68
Recommendation: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee
that this proposal be reconsidered relative to the use of the terms “conduit” and
“raceway” and correlated with the action taken on Proposal 6-66.
This action will be considered by the panel as a public comment.
Substantiation: This is a direction from the National Electrical Code Technical
Correlating Committee in accordance with 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the Regulations
Governing Committee Projects.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: The panel’s action on Proposal 6-68 should have been
to accept in principle in part. While the panel did replace “conduits” with
“circular raceways”, the use of “raceway” alone would include types which
were not part of the submitted technical substantiation.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11
_______________________________________________________________
6-29 Log #100 NEC-P06 Final Action: Accept
(310.15(B)(2)(c))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Technical Correlating Committee on National Electrical Code?,
Comment on Proposal No: 6-69
Recommendation: It was the action of the Technical Correlating Committee
that this proposal be reconsidered relative to the use of the terms “conduit” and
“raceway” and correlated with the action taken on Proposal 6-66.
This action will be considered by the panel as a public comment.
Substantiation: This is a direction from the National Electrical Code Technical
Correlating Committee in accordance with 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 of the Regulations
Governing Committee Projects.
Panel Meeting Action: Accept
Panel Statement: The panel’s action on Proposal 6-69 should have been
to accept in principle in part. While the panel did replace “conduits” with
“circular raceways”, the use of “raceway” alone would include types which
were not part of the submitted technical substantiation.
Number Eligible to Vote: 11
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 11

All from the TCC; they seemed to see something was screwy.

 

[K8MHZ]

I agree and have not taken the time to look at the ROP ROCs for it but why did they obviously leave out a NEMA 3R or 4X wireway?

But none of that changes my point that the CMP does not seem to consider EMT to be a conduit in the NEC sense.

Other than not having the word conduit in the name, what makes EMT not a conduit?

What special properties do 'conduits', as considered by the NEC, have over tubing?

Just looking at the table of contents and seeing that conduit and tubing are grouped separately seems to indicate some distinction, but what, exactly?

 

[rbalex]

I see the Panel Statement on Comment 6-29 as back-peddling since they didn't change a thing. There was no mention in the original Proposal what “other raceways” were “tested.” It doesn’t mention what, if any, nonmetallic or various flexible “circular” raceways were subject to this set of tests.

 

[kwired]

[h=2]From www.merriam-webster.com:


Definition of CONDUIT[/h]1
: a natural or artificial channel through which something (as a fluid) is conveyed

2
archaic : fountain

3
: a pipe, tube, or tile for protecting electric wires or cables

4
: a means of transmitting or distributing <a conduit for illicit payments> <a conduit of information>



[h=2]Definition of TUBING[/h]1
: material in the form of a tube; also : a length or piece of tube

2
: a series or system of tubes

3
: the sport or activity of riding an inner tube (as down a river or snowy slope)


Based on these defintions isn't EMT and RMC both conduit and both tubing?

 

[rbalex]

...
But none of that changes my point that the CMP does not seem to consider EMT to be a conduit in the NEC sense.

Bob,

I apologize for not dealing with this earlier.

CMP6 generally deals with wire and cord types, CMP 7 generally with cable types, and CMP 8 generally with raceways and cable trays.That's to say, determining what is or isn't a "conduit" isn't in CMP6's scope. If it were necessary, it would be in CMP8's or possibly CMP1's.

I fault the TCC for not getting CMP 8 involved with 310.15(B)(2)(c). As I said, they always knew something was screwy, but couldn't seem to figure out what it was. They also should have required third party validation for the original 310.15(B)(2)(c) Proposal. Epecially since they have refused IEEE or API tests as the basis for Proposals several times; they required independent verification.

 

[jmellc]

I remember some EMT we had on one job, the brand was something starting with Rym or Rhy, I should remember it. We had it in 3/4 and 1 inch. Offsets & shallow kicks bent OK, but 90's kinked every time. We had to use factory 90's for it. Most of it had a weird look, sort of twist marks, like it came from a malfunctioning extruder. We made sure to avoid that brand after that.

 

[kwired]

.. Most of it had a weird look, sort of twist marks, like it came from a malfunctioning extruder.

That may be the issue, good stuff should have been rolled steel stock then bent and welded to make a tube.

 

[petersonra]

Have you bent any 3/4 rigid lately? We've got one supplier with 3/4" you can barely bend by hand, all the other suppliers carry the typical much easier to bend 3/4" rigid.



That's really beside the point isn't it?

Sure it is not IMC instead of rigid?

 

[renosteinke]

Kwired .... I suspect that the marks he saw were the result of the pipe being straightened, as part of the manufacturing process.

There's never been a straight pipe made. What comes off the line starts off looking like a banana. The pipe is spun as it passes through the straightener. The line he saw was probably the actual weld line. I'm not sure if EMT can be made from galvanized stock, or if they have to coat it after fabrication.

As for RMC vs. IMC ... the pipe makers swera that IMC is heat treated to bend, etc., exactly like RMC. That's their story, and they're sticking to it.

 

[K8MHZ]

Have you bent any 3/4 rigid lately? We've got one supplier with 3/4" you can barely bend by hand

Hmm....to me, all 3/4 rigid can barely be bent by hand. Having to do that all day would really suck. That's what Chicago benders are for. And Greenlee makes some pretty cool benders that work off electricity.

 

[Cow]

Sure it is not IMC instead of rigid?

Absolutely sure, we NEVER use IMC. Our suppliers would have to order it if we wanted it.

I should look through our shop stock and get a brand name for you guys, it is hell to bend. The guys actually go out of there way to make sure they don't get rigid from this particular supply house now...

 

[iwire]

Absolutely sure, we NEVER use IMC. Our suppliers would have to order it if we wanted it.

Seems odd, around here it is a stock item.