# Supporting a nipple. Code needs to be more clear



## J_Captain (Jul 14, 2013)

If I have a 36" emt going from one enclosure to another enclosure, where in the NEC does it say I need to support this?

If I have a 18" emt going from one enclosure to another enclosure, where in the NEC does it say I need to support this?

If I have a 3" emt going from one enclosure to another enclosure, where in the NEC does it say I need to support this?

Where does the NEC draw the line on unsupported short nipples?


----------



## BBQ (Nov 16, 2010)

What you bring up is a common topic and the code has been changing over it.

But here it is from the 2011 NEC, how your local AHJ enforces it is another story.



> *358.30 Securing and Supporting.* EMT shall be installed
> as a complete system in accordance with 300.18 and shall
> be securely fastened in place and supported in accordance
> with 358.30(A) and (B).
> ...


----------



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

In Oregon we have specific exemptions for this. A nipple 24" or less mounted between two solidly mounted enclosures can be unsupported for most of the common raceway types.


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

... the 18" and 36" pieces need support


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Seems to me that the termination at each end would qualify as secured and supported.

If it's got two connectors within 36" of each other, I would call that supported.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Big John said:


> Seems to me that the termination at each end would qualify as secured and supported.
> 
> If it's got two connectors within 36" of each other, I would call that supported.


There is nothing in the code that says conduit terminations for any of the non-flexible conduits are conduit supports. If they were, then why does the code require a support within 36" of a conduit termination?


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

The 2"X 2" nipple I put in between two cans yesterday is going to be really hard to fit a strap onto, now that I know it is a code violation. If I am not mistaken, the unistrut clamps alone are 1-1/2" wide. Maybe I can suspend a rod from the soffit and use a mineralac. Maybe I can forget I read this thread and ignore the whole issue. :whistling2:


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

macmikeman said:


> The 2"X 2" nipple I put in between two cans yesterday is going to be really hard to fit a strap onto, now that I know it is a code violation. If I am not mistaken, the unistrut clamps alone are 1-1/2" wide. Maybe I can suspend a rod from the soffit and use a mineralac. Maybe I can forget I read this thread and ignore the whole issue. :whistling2:


too late, I've already emailed NSA (National Support Association), their looking at it now from????>>?????


----------



## macmikeman (Jan 23, 2007)

360max said:


> too late, I've already emailed NSA (National Support Association), their looking at it now from????>>?????



Too late. I just fixed the whole thing by burying all the equipment under 7' of dirt and turned it into an underground installation, because I believe that the code does not require support for a single run of conduit that is 18" below grade.


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

what about close nipples? good god stop the madness!


----------



## guest (Feb 21, 2009)

Here's the best way to support nipples: :thumbup:


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> There is nothing in the code that says conduit terminations for any of the non-flexible conduits are conduit supports. If they were, then why does the code require a support within 36" of a conduit termination?


 I've got Codecitis: When you've been installing something a certain way for so long you're certain it's code compliant and never bothered checking.

Re-reading the support requirements, it says supported "_within_" 36 inches, not supported _"after" _36 inches, and there's no minimum length. So apparently if you dropped in a 4" close-nipple you'd have to support it. I will never say out loud that's completely asinine, but....


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Big John said:


> So apparently if you dropped in a 4" close-nipple you'd have to support it. I will never say out loud that's completely asinine, but....


Nah. It's more then asinine.


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

mxslick said:


> Here's the best way to support nipples: :thumbup:


I'd rather support her nipples with my hands.


----------



## ralpha494 (Oct 29, 2008)

If you're using the '08 code: 358.30(C) says EMT >18" needs support.

This was dropped in the 2011 edition.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

ralpha494 said:


> If you're using the '08 code: 358.30(C) says EMT >18" needs support.
> 
> This was dropped in the 2011 edition.


The rule in the 2008 code was intended to address this issue..that is the issue of codes prior to the 2008 and after the 2008 requiring all conduit nipples, no matter how short, to have support other than the conduit terminations. The original proposal for the 2008 code was to permit conduits less than 36" long to be supported only by the conduit terminations. The code panel accepted in principle and changed the length from 36" to 18". 
The rule in the 2008 code should have stayed in the code and the length changed back to 36" but the CMP did not like that idea.


----------



## buddhakii (Jan 13, 2011)

I ran a couple 4" Grc into the bottom of a ct can today. The couplings were on the 90's were just out of the concrete slab. Nipples to bottom of can were almost 5 feet long. I did not strap. Per code I do need to strap, but I know and anyone with common sense should know they are not going anywhere. If inspectors calls me on it I will strap but not until then. God for bid anyone in this country has discretion.


----------

