Independent Conduit Support

cvirgil467

Senior Member
Location
NewYork
Does the NEC 2012 (or prior editions) require independent conduit support from other systems, such as duct hangers, pipe hangers, and other similar systems? I though a seperate independent system was required but cannot locate any such requirement in Article 300.

Thanks.
c
 

augie47

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee
300.11 only requires that they be "securely fastened in place" and prohibits supporting on raceway from another.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
And that sums it up quite well.
Lets just say in general you can not support other systems from the electrical system, so it is probably not such a good idea to support the electrical system from other systems either.

Those other systems may actually have an associated code that prohibits them from supporting other systems too.
 

ActionDave

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Durango, CO, 10 h 20 min without traffic from wing
Occupation
wire pulling grunt
Lets just say in general you can not support other systems from the electrical system, so it is probably not such a good idea to support the electrical system from other systems either.

Those other systems may actually have an associated code that prohibits them from supporting other systems too.
I won't strap my conduit runs to a HVAC duct, but if the HVAC dudes build a unistrut rack to support their duck I have no problem strapping conduit to it.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I won't strap my conduit runs to a HVAC duct, but if the HVAC dudes build a unistrut rack to support their duck I have no problem strapping conduit to it.
Same here, exception may be supporting a wiring method from duct that runs to a device associated with the duct, like a damper, pressure sensor, booster fan, etc.
 

Stevareno

Senior Member
Location
Dallas, TX
What is the reason against using conduits in the same system for supporting other conduits (think back to back mineralaks)?

If the original conduit is supported securely, I don't see how piggy-backing that support has any downside consequences.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
What is the reason against using conduits in the same system for supporting other conduits (think back to back mineralaks)?

If the original conduit is supported securely, I don't see how piggy-backing that support has any downside consequences.
Do you see any downside if you supported twenty runs of conduit from one?

What if in the future you have to remove the supporting conduit?
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Do you see any downside if you supported twenty runs of conduit from one?

What if in the future you have to remove the supporting conduit?
What if the structural member supporting all twenty-one conduits runs gets removed for some reason? "What if" doesn't cut it, if it did we may as well give up because nothing we do will be right.
 

DARUSA

Senior Member
Location
New York City
I will say that when you create a rack or kindorf support you will have to consider the weight that you will apply to it, that will be part of your calculation, now what about if after you did you task correctly a buddy from the plumbing trade use you rack and create a over weight in your supports, who will be responsible for it? plumbers or electricians?
 

jusme123

Senior Member
Location
NY
Occupation
JW
Do you see any downside if you supported twenty runs of conduit from one?

What if in the future you have to remove the supporting conduit?
...'what if' is a design issue, not covered by the NEC (or a least they claim).
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
...'what if' is a design issue, not covered by the NEC (or a least they claim).
Enough already. "What if" scenarios are instilled into the very foundation of NEC intent. Many of the requirements are there just for the purpose of preventing "what if" scenarios. Whether a method is safe or unsafe is many times a result of "what if" analysis. Just becausse a scenario isn't fully detailed in the NEC itself doesn't mean those scenarios haven't been considered when the requirement was implemented. The question I replied to went to intent, not compliance, and therefore opened the door to "what if" scenarios.

So rather than wasting time bashing others' posts, make use of your time and offer something beneficial... :thumbsup:
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
Enough already. "What if" scenarios are instilled into the very foundation of NEC intent. Many of the requirements are there just for the purpose of preventing "what if" scenarios. Whether a method is safe or unsafe is many times a result of "what if" analysis. Just becausse a scenario isn't fully detailed in the NEC itself doesn't mean those scenarios haven't been considered when the requirement was implemented. The question I replied to went to intent, not compliance, and therefore opened the door to "what if" scenarios.

So rather than wasting time bashing others' posts, make use of your time and offer something beneficial... :thumbsup:
I agree there are many code requirements that are there because of "what if".

I think the degree of probability, or the potential hazard involved has a lot to do with just exactly which "what if's" we need to give more attention to.

I also believe you can not successfully address every possible "what if" as there is an infinite number of "what if's" available.
 
Top