boucher0331
Member
- Location
- connecticut
Is a EMT coupling considered a tubing termination point.:slaphead:
358.30 A
358.30 A
Need help understanding the code.
- Thread starter boucher0331
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
A coupling is not a termination point IMO.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Is that why you ask???
boucher0331
Member
- Location
- connecticut
thanks for the feed back!
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
No.
boucher0331
Member
- Location
- connecticut
I am asking out of the 2011 code. I am asking because WE have a debate going on in our class right now. What year are you working from.
What would be another tubing termination example ?
What would be another tubing termination example ?
boucher0331
Member
- Location
- connecticut
Thank you again for your help. If any one has any input please speak up.
Thank you!
Thank you!
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
The year doesn't matter as it has been the same for some time 2005, 2008 and 2011 as well as 2014 has the same wording. Not sure what it was before that
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
I think you are caught up in the words of tubing terminations and you are expecting couplings to be in that group. If you look at the examples you see that they are not talking about fittings but rather equipment, boxes etc as termination point. Nowhere does it state 3' from a connector
Gregg Harris
Senior Member
- Location
- Virginia
- Occupation
- Electrical,HVAC, Technical Trainer
The verbiage was change in the 1993 code changing the word at the end from (fitting) to (conduit body).
In 1999 the verbiage (or other tubing termination) was added to the end of the section.
There is no definition for tubing termination.
The word fitting included couplings implying that a support was required on each side of the coupling..
This code section has had confusion for years and numerous code change proposals have been presented, the final one that was excepted in 1993 and created the change to the verbiage that is current stated," Coupling support is assured by the third sentence requiring support every ten feet.
There are different examples showing coupling support when using the ten foot requirement and some that do not.
Personally the weakest point of the conduit run is the coupling and it should be clear that it should be required.
Another proposal for clarity is in order.
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
The terminations in the graphic provided are pretty good examples. Even though "raceway termination" is not defined by the NEC a coupling that connects two pieces of EMT together does not terminate anything.
If your debate is wether to put a strap near the joint where the coupling is, to support it,,,,,technically no,,, but I'd throw rocks at any of my guys that didnt.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
This is a good point and one I was making above. The NEC is not talking about termination fittings but rather terminations such as in a jb, switchboard, panel, conduit body and any other places subject to termination. The change was to clarify that fittings were not what the NEC was speaking of but rather the point of termination. A surface mounted dryer or range receptacle would be other tubing terminations as mention in art. 358.30(A)
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
In reading this I'm not so sure that I would include a conduit body on the list of termination points.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
All that is saying is that the conduit can support the conduit body. IMO, you still need a strap within 3' of the conduit body as shown and the lb is a termination point. Also 358.30 includes conduit body and seems to refer to it when it states " or other terminations"
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
I'm not so sure but what you're saying would make sense. The way I read the exception you could have two supports 10' apart with a conduit body right in the middle providing it's the same size as the trade size of the raceway.
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
nope see in red below:
The exception does not relive the requirement of support within 3'
What does not make any sense to me is that the exception totally undoes the rule it was written under, the same goes for 314.23(F)
Second is that it was always required the raceway to be threaded into hubs built into the box or listed hubs and not by lock-nut and or bushings, I don't see where the exception makes a change to this, but it list EMT as one of the wiring methods???
Third, the exception can be applied only if the
trade size of the conduit body is not larger than the largest
trade size of the conduit or tubing, so EMT goes all the way up to 4" so as long as you don't have a 5" conduit body the exception is a go, so you run 1/2" EMT and install a 4" conduit body????
It does not say it has to be the same size of the conduit you ran?
Last edited:
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
The heading of that section is "314.23(E) Raceway Supported Enclosure, Without Devices, Luminaries, or Lampholders." IMO the exception negates any requirement for a conduit body to have a support within 3' with the intention that the conduit body is the same size as the conduit.
Say that is true, how do you you get around the requirement to secure the conduit within 3' of a termination (assuming you agree a conduit entering a conduit body represents a conduit termination, and the securing exception to 5' is not applicable)?
- Status