When to use bonding bushings?

[pvitt]

If I go from EMT to Flex, is a bonding bushing required? Is it for sevices only? I quess what I need more than anything is a code reference. Thanks, talk to ya later. Paul

 

[Buck Parrish]

If I go from EMT to Flex, is a bonding bushing required? Is it for sevices only? I quess what I need more than anything is a code reference. Thanks, talk to ya later. Paul

It may or may not be required. Their is not enough info. in your OP. Chances are your answer is in 250 some where.

 

[augie47]

see 250.92 for bonding service raceways

 

[pvitt]

Are you serious Buck? I mean no disrespect, but Article 250 requires a map and compass just to fudge your way through it.

 

[George Stolz]

Are you serious?

Who are you asking?

Generally, FMC is considered bonded by the connection of it's fittings (348.6) to other bonded materials, such as a metallic box or raceway. Sometimes it can even serve as the equipment grounding conductor (EGC).

 

[Buck Parrish]

Are you serious Buck? I mean no disrespect, but Article 250 requires a map and compass just to fudge your way through it.

It's not that bad.:wink: The more you study 250 the more interesting it gets. And this forum helps make it interesting.:smile:
If you had eccentric knock outs you may need bonding bushings.

 

[George Stolz]

If I go from EMT to Flex, is a bonding bushing required?

I'd say no.

Is it for services only? I guess what I need more than anything is a code reference.

Nearly. Also, see 250.98.

One item I see a lot, is people installing a bonding bushing on both ends of a feeder wired exclusively in EMT. This is not required. As long as the connectors are correctly installed into the box, the raceways are bonded. A bushing may be required, if the conductors inside the raceway are #4 or larger (300.4(F)), but it does not have to be a bonding bushing.

 

[pvitt]

I am sorry for making it sound bad Buck. It's me, when somebody even mentions Article 250 I never seem to have a machete handy to cut through it's legal ease. I am sorry for coming across cross. Thanks.

 

[Buck Parrish]

No problem chief . I am use to it.
Some body said posting here is like a night at the Appollo. If we're not right we will be told about it. And ussually more then once.


I bet NEC 250 is easier to navigate , then reading the 1100 page stimulous bill the Pres. signed today.

 

[pvitt]

When put in that perspective Article 250 seems so familiar and almost like home.

 

[billdozier]

ah but who actually reads either of them

 

[pvitt]

excellent point Sir. Billdozier

 

[infinity]

You cannot answer the question with the information provided. Care to provide more detail?

 

[M. D.]

I bet NEC 250 is easier to navigate , then reading the 1100 page stimulous bill the Pres. signed today.

The difference is we have read article 250.. not many,. if any who voted for and or signed ,..read that mess.

 

[goldstar]

I was always under the impression (from a logical point of view) that a bonding lock nut or bushing was required only when you have concentric or eccentric KO's that may work themselves loose from the enclosure over time, thereby causing a break between the grounded enclosure and the conduit body. Sorry, no code reference just common sense IMHO.

 

[augie47]

If the raceway contains service condutors then 250.92 (B) addresses bonding. The last sentance in that section states "standard locknuts and bushings shall not be the sole means for the bonding required by this section". So, in the case of service conductors 250.92(B) must be taken into account. A grounding locknut is usually acceptable unless you encounter concentric or eccetric knockouts and then a bonding bushing may be necessary.
250.97 addresses bonding over 250 volts to ground