Re-poll

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

Re-poll

  • Total voters
    77
Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
Which has nothing at all to do with what the NEC requires.



Don has told you, go look at the start in the 1996 NEC and it is clear and he has posted the ROP saying that even though the wording has changed for the 1999 the intent remained the same

It is done, you where wrong,, just accept it or put in for a code change but please drop the nonsense.
Click to expand...

The wording has to be changed for you to be correct. a AND b, you can not steer around that the way it is written!
 
jusme123 said:
The wording has to be changed for you to be correct. a AND b, you can not steer around that the way it is written!
Click to expand...
Just because you are told to do something in accordance with A and B doesn't mean that rule B must be imposing additional conditions beyond rule A. It can, in fact, allow alternatives to rule A, as it does in this case.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
Just because you are told to do something in accordance with A and B doesn't mean that rule B must be imposing additional conditions beyond rule A. It can, in fact, allow alternatives to rule A, as it does in this case.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...

the alternatives to 'A' are listed as exception 1 and exception 2
 
jusme123 said:
the alternatives to 'A' are listed as exception 1 and exception 2
Click to expand...
And given the way (B) is worded, it is also an exception. It says "XYZ shall be permitted". That certainly doesn't impose any additional requirements beyond (A); rather "shall be permitted" rules always provide an alternative to the usual rule.

Now as to why some of the alternatives are written as exceptions, and some of them are written as "shall be permitted" rules, it's just bad editing on the part of the NFPA. The history of this rule was reported on earlier in the thread and shows how that happened.

Cheers, Wayne
 
mxslick said:
...
Great. :roll: I see a manufacturer, union rep, chemical rep(?), aluminum co rep, UL rep (one who should know better), and a POCO rep amongst others. I don't see ANY one there or in the alternates who would have real-world, hands-on experience which is what would be relevant here. ...
Click to expand...
All of the IBEW reps, and many of the NECA reps have field experience. I would also expect that an number of the IAEI reps have also worked in the field.
 
Re-poll

Section 358.30 should not be that hard understand.
(A) Add to 300.11 as to what intervals EMT is be securely fastened in place, complies with ?shall be securely fastened in place? in the opening statement.
(B) Add an alternative to securely fastened in place by adding ?and supported? when installed horizontal through opening in framing members. But the conduit is still required to be shall be securely fastened in place within 3 feet its termination point.

As for framing members it is only one of the structural support components of a building (frame) which make up the skeleton.
The basic framing members make up the frame of a building or structure could be beams used in walls which are called studs, supports in roofs and floors which are called joists or girders and shorter horizontal supports over doors and windows are called headers or lintels and so on.
The only problem I have is as was noted how you would define opening.
 
I vote no. NEC 358.30 deals with two separate, related issues - securing and supporting - and you are required to comply with both 358.30(A) and (B) because of the work "AND" in 358.30. Requirements for securing are outlined in 358.30(A) while requirements for supporting are outlined in 358.30(B). Although the web joists may meet the support requirements of 358.30(B) if they are spaced closer than 10 feet apart. However, if the EMT is not strapped every 10 feet, the requirements of 358.30(A) have not been met, thereby resulting in a non-compliant installation.
 
jrohe said:
I vote no. NEC 358.30 deals with two separate, related issues - securing and supporting - and you are required to comply with both 358.30(A) and (B) because of the work "AND" in 358.30.
Click to expand...


IF that were true, and I firmly believe it is not.

There would be absolutely no reason at all for (B) to exist.
 
iwire said:
IF that were true, and I firmly believe it is not.

There would be absolutely no reason at all for (B) to exist.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. Securing and supporting are two different things. NEC 358.30(A) requires EMT to be "...securely fastened in place...," meaning it will not move unless the means used to secure it are undone. Support means to hold up or serve as a foundation for.

You can support something without securing it, which is exactly the scenario brought up in this poll. Using the framing members of the joists will support the conduit from the effects of gravity. However, those framing members will have very little effect on preventing the conduit from moving longitudinally and they will have no effect on preventing the conduit from being pushed up by some force.
 
jrohe said:
I respectfully disagree. Securing and supporting are two different things. NEC 358.30(A) requires EMT to be "...securely fastened in place...," meaning it will not move unless the means used to secure it are undone. Support means to hold up or serve as a foundation for.

You can support something without securing it, which is exactly the scenario brought up in this poll. Using the framing members of the joists will support the conduit from the effects of gravity. However, those framing members will have very little effect on preventing the conduit from moving longitudinally and they will have no effect on preventing the conduit from being pushed up by some force.
Click to expand...

I'm with Bob on this. B specifically says the method described is adequate (not needing the pipe to be secured other than within 3' of the box). It specifically says this is adequate, nothing else required.

Now, in practice, I would not install it without securing it, but that's a personal preference and not required by the NEC.
 
hardworkingstiff said:
I'm with Bob on this. B specifically says the method described is adequate (not needing the pipe to be secured other than within 3' of the box). It specifically says this is adequate, nothing else required.

Now, in practice, I would not install it without securing it, but that's a personal preference and not required by the NEC.
Click to expand...

I agree that 358.30(B) states the framing members of the joists are adequate for the support of the EMT. However, 358.30 requires EMT to be secured and supported in accordance with 358.30(A) and (B). The use of the word "and" essentially clarifies that the NEC considers securing and supporting two different animals and that 358.30 requires the EMT to be both secured and supported.

If the EMT is secured every 10 feet (and 3 feet from each outlet box, junction box, device box, cabinet, conduit body, or other tubing termination) as required by 358.30(A), chances are the installation also meets the supporting requirements of 358.30(B). I can't imagine how a conduit could be secured without also supporting it.

NEC 358.30(B) permits framing members to be used as the means of support as long the EMT is also secured within 3 feet of termination points. However, it does not preclude the requirement for also complying with 358.30(A).

Now, I'm not trying to stir the pot. I'm just stating my interpretation of the Code requirements. I heard a very good quote one time that goes something to the effect of, "The Code does not say what you think it says; the Code NEVER says what you want it to say; the Code just says what it says."
 
jrohe said:
I heard a very good quote one time that goes something to the effect of, "The Code does not say what you think it says; the Code NEVER says what you want it to say; the Code just says what it says."
Click to expand...

You are probably thinking of Charlie B's rule of Technical reading and it is as follows

It doesn?t say what you think it says, nor what you remember it to have said, nor what you were told that it says, and certainly not what you want it to say, and if by chance you are its author, it doesn?t say what you intended it to say. Then what does it say? It says what it says. So if you want to know what it says, stop trying to remember what it says, and don?t ask anyone else. Go back and read it, and pay attention as though you were reading it for the first time.
Click to expand...

Roger
 
jrohe said:
Securing and supporting are two different things.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt they are different things and both issues are fully handled by (A).

The only purpose of (B) is to provide relief from the securing requirements when running horizontally through framing members.
 
jrohe said:
NEC 358.30(B) permits framing members to be used as the means of support as long the EMT is also secured within 3 feet of termination points. However, it does not preclude the requirement for also complying with 358.30(A).
Click to expand...

I would like to ask you directly, what is the purpose of B. If you always have to comply with A, why did B get put in the code?
 
iwire said:
Without a doubt they are different things and both issues are fully handled by (A).

The only purpose of (B) is to provide relief from the securing requirements when running horizontally through framing members.
Click to expand...

I disagree. NEC 358.30(B) does not state that EMT is not required to be secured per 358.30(A) nor does it state the section applies in lieu of 358.30(A). It merely permits framing members to be used as the means of support in lieu of providing some other hanging or support method.

The fact is that 358.30 requires compliance with both (A) "and" (B). If the framing members are not used as the means of support, then (B) does not apply because securing the EMT per 358.30(A) also provides the support.

I would agree with you if the word "and" in 358.30 were changed to "or."
 
hardworkingstiff said:
I would like to ask you directly, what is the purpose of B. If you always have to comply with A, why did B get put in the code?
Click to expand...

I can not speak for the CMP, but I suspect it was to clarify that the framing members are permitted to serve as the means of support in lieu of providing some other means of support such as rod and hangers, etc.
 
jrohe said:
I disagree. NEC 358.30(B) does not state that EMT is not required to be secured per 358.30(A) nor does it state the section applies in lieu of 358.30(A). It merely permits framing members to be used as the means of support in lieu of providing some other hanging or support method.
Click to expand...

If B was only there to allow framing members to be used as a means of support, why does it mention securely fastened within 3' of a box since it's already covered in A and per your reasoning A must be complied anyway?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top