EMT Support 358.30 why was it changed

[Jaybone812]

"Fastened in place" is defined by the NEC merely as needing tools to remove. "Securely" is not defined, and is up to the AHJ to interpret per dictionary definition or common understanding.

Thus if the length of EMT between boxes is less than 3ft, and the AHJ approves it as 'secure' there is no code requirement for additional straps, since we can assume the EMT is 'fastened in place' by properly installed connectors.

An exception citing 18 inches would imply that sections between 18 and 36 inches require strapping even if they are otherwise securely fastened in place. So I think that was the problem.

So, my position is that the code *allows* EMT between boxes up to 3ft, without a strap, so long as it's 'secure'. In my book that's going to require the boxes to be secure, and for it to be straight without a coupling, as most agree in practice.

That’s my position as well

 

[don_resqcapt19]

"Fastened in place" is defined by the NEC merely as needing tools to remove. "Securely" is not defined, and is up to the AHJ to interpret per dictionary definition or common understanding.

Thus if the length of EMT between boxes is less than 3ft, and the AHJ approves it as 'secure' there is no code requirement for additional straps, since we can assume the EMT is 'fastened in place' by properly installed connectors.

An exception citing 18 inches would imply that sections between 18 and 36 inches require strapping even if they are otherwise securely fastened in place. So I think that was the problem.

So, my position is that the code *allows* EMT between boxes up to 3ft, without a strap, so long as it's 'secure'. In my book that's going to require the boxes to be secure, and for it to be straight without a coupling, as most agree in practice.

The only issue is there is nothing that even suggest the raceway terminations can be used for securing and supporting. The code has that language for some applications of flexible wiring methods, but not for non-flexible wiring methods.

My last attempt to fix this was a PI that would have specifically permitted the raceway terminations to be used as the support for unbroken lengths of 3' or less, but that was also rejected by the CMP. I don't remember when I submitted that PI, maybe for the 2017 code, but could have been before that.

 

[jaggedben]

The only issue is there is nothing that even suggest the raceway terminations can be used for securing and supporting. ...

"Securely fastened in place" is the extent of the requirement. There is nothing in that to suggest that raceway terminations can NOT be used for securing and supporting, and it's a permissive code.

 

[brother]

Well in terms of exception 1 I think he was right and it was not applicable, you were running parallel with the framing members so you have every opportunity to use the stud to secure the emt , 358.30 (a)exception 1 is intended to apply to conduit ran perpendicular to ceiling framing members , if the roof supports spanned 5’ and yiu put a box on one rafters you wouldn’t have to drop a support within 3’ you could secure the conduit at the structural member 5’ from the box as long as it was a unbroken length of conduit
That being said i like I mentioned in my prior comment I feel that 2’ piece of emt you had between two boxes satisfied 358.30(A) and was securely fastened in place

Sorry for the delay in responding, been away for a minute. I see there are few more posts on this topic, I forgot to mentioned that your 'photo' example of the perpendicular to the framing members really doesn't mean anything as the code says what it says. I also can argue if you take a certain view with my run, then I can argue that they make straps and hardware (uni-strut etc..) to support the conduit in the picture you gave.

Like I said, I view 'readily' is being almost existing and not needing cross bars or wood or other installs to put a support. lol. I have attached a picture of an existing run that was done by someone else and was inspected and approved as I was told. The short piece of conduit is less than 2ft between boxes. I plan to do a run like this in the same area when I add my receptacle. ;-) Yes, I know they make straps just for cross bars and able to attached to the studs, and yet I am being a REBEL and just leaving it hanging in free air, my less than 2ft stick (about 18 inches) of emt run.

By the way, what is your definition of 'readily'?? Mine is taken in part from the NEC definition of readily accessible (not need tools or ladders ). So It doesnt 'readily permit, cause I need tools and special install construction to support it. LOL.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

"Securely fastened in place" is the extent of the requirement. There is nothing in that to suggest that raceway terminations can NOT be used for securing and supporting, and it's a permissive code.

The conduit termination has not been evaluated for that purpose.

 

[Jaybone812]

Sorry for the delay in responding, been away for a minute. I see there are few more posts on this topic, I forgot to mentioned that your 'photo' example of the perpendicular to the framing members really doesn't mean anything as the code says what it says. I also can argue if you take a certain view with my run, then I can argue that they make straps and hardware (uni-strut etc..) to support the conduit in the picture you gave.

Like I said, I view 'readily' is being almost existing and not needing cross bars or wood or other installs to put a support. lol. I have attached a picture of an existing run that was done by someone else and was inspected and approved as I was told. The short piece of conduit is less than 2ft between boxes. I plan to do a run like this in the same area when I add my receptacle. ;-) Yes, I know they make straps just for cross bars and able to attached to the studs, and yet I am being a REBEL and just leaving it hanging in free air, my less than 2ft stick (about 18 inches) of emt run.

By the way, what is your definition of 'readily'?? Mine is taken in part from the NEC definition of readily accessible (not need tools or ladders ). So It doesnt 'readily permit, cause I need tools and special install construction to support it. LOL.

Does does readily permit fastening and securing that’s the thing , you do two offsets you have the ability to secure it right to the stud, and they make TSGB brackets as well if you didnt wanna do the offsets , when they refernce tools in readily accessible they are saying you should not have to use tools to get to a box, device , utilization equipment, that framing is parralell with the conduit so the framing readily permits securing, but like I said I think that satisfies 358.30 in being securely fastened anyways ,
The only problem being is something @don_resqcapt19 pointed out in last post that the conduit termination has not been evaluated for this purpose

 

[jaggedben]

The conduit termination has not been evaluated for that purpose.

It's not required to be.

 

[brother]

Does does readily permit fastening and securing that’s the thing , you do two offsets you have the ability to secure it right to the stud, and they make TSGB brackets as well if you didnt wanna do the offsets , when they refernce tools in readily accessible they are saying you should not have to use tools to get to a box, device , utilization equipment, that framing is parralell with the conduit so the framing readily permits securing, but like I said I think that satisfies 358.30 in being securely fastened anyways ,
The only problem being is something @don_resqcapt19 pointed out in last post that the conduit termination has not been evaluated for this purpose

2 offsets in a 18 inch conduit, those studs are a bit ways away lol . this was an existing run done by others, and it passed the inspection. parallel or perpendicular doesnt matter from what I see, , the code also mentioned for the other definition 'readily accessible' to not have to take extra steps. lol. I believe 'extra steps' would have to be taken in that run. we agree to disagree, I think that run would look ugly if had put offsets in there just to strap.