I suspect because the fastening within 3 feet is a provision for the Code permitting framing members to be used as the means of support, thereby precluding the framing members from being utilized as the means of support if either exception to 358.30(A) were excercised.
Re-poll
- Thread starter hardworkingstiff
- Start date
- Status
I suspect because the fastening within 3 feet is a provision for the Code permitting framing members to be used as the means of support, thereby precluding the framing members from being utilized as the means of support if either exception to 358.30(A) were excercised.
GrayHeadedMule
Member
Okay, I'm an inspector/building official. It is my opinion that if you install EMT through the web strusses and the trusses are less than 10 feet on center then you have met the requirement of section 358.30 b supporting.
However 358.30 Securing and Supporting.
AND being the key word here....Securing would still be required by 358.30 a.
No where in this section does it specify that if you support the EMT that you don't have too secure it also. You have to "secure AND support" the EMT.
However 358.30 Securing and Supporting.
AND being the key word here....Securing would still be required by 358.30 a.
No where in this section does it specify that if you support the EMT that you don't have too secure it also. You have to "secure AND support" the EMT.
110.12 is wasted ink because it is basically unenforcible and is only in the eye of the beholder, many may think a plate of worms is ugly while others only see beauty.
Nobody has said the EMT doesn't need to be supported.
Roger
- Location
- Massachusetts
hardworkingstiff
Senior Member
- Location
- Wilmington, NC
So, based on what you are saying, as an inspector, you come to a job with conduit installed horizontally through the studs for the wall. The conduit is running between boxes, and leaves a box goes up for 16" (with a box offset so a strap can be installed holding the conduit to the stud within 3' of the box) then turns a 90 going through the studs. The other end of the conduit turns down (approximately 12' away) and terminates just like the 1st box.
I say that job is compliant since the conduit is securely fastened within 3' of the box and it's supported where it goes through the studs. You on the other hand will fail the job because it is not securely fastened within 10' of either strap.
Did I understand this correctly?
I am sorry you still misunderstand the NEC requirements.
Would you say that EMT routed through framing members, where framing members are used as the means of support, and the EMT is only fastened within 3 feet of terminations complies with the securing requirements of 358.30(A)?
If you would answer this question "no," then I believe you are misunderstanding the NEC requirements because 358.30 requires compliance with both 358.30(A) "and" 358.30(B). NEC 358.30 does not say 358.30(A) "or" 358.30(B).
GrayHeadedMule
Member
No I would not fail a job if the conduit was installed horizontally through studs in a wall as in your scenario listed above. In this type of installation I feel the conduit is secured. You couldn't move the conduit like you would be able too in the OP. The OP specified installing EMT in web trusses. Just laying on a web truss is not secured. Drilled holes in studs is.
I for one do NOT consider a truss to be a "framing member". (EDIT: See Volta's post #5!) Studs and horizontal bracing in walls, yes those are framing members. My AHJ friend concurs with this.
Exactly. I cannot believe so many people here don't get this, it is one of the few things in the Code that is crystal clear and unambiguous.
What part of AND do you guys not understand? :grin:
Again crystal clear.
That's a bingo.
Again, grab a conduit routed through drilled holes in studs and try to move it, you won't get far. Grab a conduit laying unsecured in a truss and try to move it and you'll be able to deflect it enough to either separate a coupling or severely bend or damage the conduit.
My vote stands.
Last edited:
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
That's what I've been saying all along, too, but all the guys that are wrong don't agree with us.:roll:
- Location
- Massachusetts
And the handbook does call it framing member.
Don also posted building code information that says they are framing members.
And as much as you have a problem with that possibility of a coupling being damaged the code allows it.
Stands for what?
Applying what you want instead of what is required?
If I make it in big bold letters will that change your mind? :roll:
Last edited:
- Location
- Massachusetts
Cowboy, where is the NEC section that supports the different treatment of framing members?
- Location
- Massachusetts
OK lets go back in time
OK lets go back in time
Now Don already laid this out very clearly but here it is in black and white.
This is a picture from the 1996 NEC. At that time Article 348 was EMT.
What does this clearly allow?
OK lets go back in time
Now Don already laid this out very clearly but here it is in black and white.
This is a picture from the 1996 NEC. At that time Article 348 was EMT.
What does this clearly allow?
- Location
- Massachusetts
Here it is from the 1999 NEC
What does the above section clearly allow?
You notice the clear release of the 'securing' requirements?
What does the above section clearly allow?
You notice the clear release of the 'securing' requirements?
- Location
- Massachusetts
2002 NEC anyone?
2002 NEC anyone?
Gee it still seems to allow no 'securing' on horizontal runs. :grin:
2002 NEC anyone?
Gee it still seems to allow no 'securing' on horizontal runs. :grin:
- Location
- Massachusetts
The 2005 NEC is where the problem starts
The 2005 NEC is where the problem starts
If you notice now the word 'and' has been added.
The 2005 NEC is where the problem starts
If you notice now the word 'and' has been added.
iwire: The 2008 NEC Handbook supports your argument. As a matter of fact, it illustrates the exact type of installation the OP posted. However, the NEC Handbook is not enforceable and does not constitute formal interpretations of the NFPA. As a matter of fact, the handbook contains a Notice Concerning Liability stating, "neither the NFPA nor the contributors to this handbook guarantee the accuracy or completeness of or assume any liability in connection with the information and opinions contained within this handbook."
Additionally, I, along with several other people in this forum disagree that the Code permits the conduit to be supported by the truss framing members without also securing it per 358.30(A) because 358.30 requires compliance with both (A) and (B). There is no "clear release of the securing requirements" in the 2008 NEC or any of the other versions you posted. The Code does not say "either (A) or (B)" - it says comply with both (A) and (B), period.
If you can provide a Code reference where it says that if the EMT is supported by framing members every 10 feet then it doesn't need to be secured per 358.30(A), I'll buy in. But until then, I'm standing my ground, along with several other people in this forum, many of which are inspectors and the very people who can make your life difficult.
Is there any doubt that securing the EMT per 358.30(A) in addition supporting it per 358.30(B) results in a safer installation? If not, then it's not a matter of what people "applying what they want instead of what is required." You make it sound like securing the EMT per 358.30(A) would be a bad thing. If the CMP truly means to disregard 358.30(A) if the installation complies with 358.30(B), then securing it per 358.30(A) is going above what is required for the benefit of everyone involved. The end user gets a safer installation and the electricians make a little more money.
Additionally, I, along with several other people in this forum disagree that the Code permits the conduit to be supported by the truss framing members without also securing it per 358.30(A) because 358.30 requires compliance with both (A) and (B). There is no "clear release of the securing requirements" in the 2008 NEC or any of the other versions you posted. The Code does not say "either (A) or (B)" - it says comply with both (A) and (B), period.
If you can provide a Code reference where it says that if the EMT is supported by framing members every 10 feet then it doesn't need to be secured per 358.30(A), I'll buy in. But until then, I'm standing my ground, along with several other people in this forum, many of which are inspectors and the very people who can make your life difficult.
Is there any doubt that securing the EMT per 358.30(A) in addition supporting it per 358.30(B) results in a safer installation? If not, then it's not a matter of what people "applying what they want instead of what is required." You make it sound like securing the EMT per 358.30(A) would be a bad thing. If the CMP truly means to disregard 358.30(A) if the installation complies with 358.30(B), then securing it per 358.30(A) is going above what is required for the benefit of everyone involved. The end user gets a safer installation and the electricians make a little more money.
SAC
Senior Member
- Location
- Massachusetts
If you notice now the word 'and' has been added.
It seems pretty clear between these examples and the context of the change given in post #21 that the intent is that "B" is an exception to "A". However, a "clarifying" change to the text was made that unintentionally changed the meaning. As a result, as currently written the "A and B" clause essentially renders "B" meaningless. However, that is not the intent of the code, and the text needs to be fixed to reflect the original intent.
The disagreement here is understandable given that the intent is different than what the code now says.
- Location
- Simi Valley, CA
Here in earthquake country, we secure everything. Every box in the ceiling here gets a seismic wire, we don't care what it weighs.
If the case for running it over a truss means that it's supported and secured then you also don't need to secure it to the top of walls or on a trapeze either. Think what you can start saving on straps if you just run it right.:roll:
- Status