# supporting EMT



## Adam12

Some of my co-workers seem to think that emt must be supported within 3' of a coupling. 
According to the NEC.

Yes, no? 

I'm 100% positive you don't have to.


----------



## Bkessler

Your correct, but when guys are only on jobs with 2" spec books their whole career they tend to start to think so. I've heard people here in CA say that on several occasions. Could be in the california amended book though.


----------



## jwjrw

358.30 Securing and Supporting. EMT shall be installed
as a complete system in accordance with 300.18 and shall
358.1 ARTICLE 358— ELECTRICAL METALLIC TUBING: TYPE EMT

be securely fastened in place and supported in accordance
with 358.30(A) and (B).
(A) Securely Fastened. EMT shall be securely fastened in
place at least every 3 m (10 ft). In addition, *each EMT run
between termination points shall be securely fastened
within 900 mm (3 ft) of each outlet box, junction box, device
box, cabinet, conduit body, or other tubing termination.*


----------



## BBQ

Adam12 said:


> Some of my co-workers seem to think that emt must be supported within 3' of a coupling.
> According to the NEC.


They are wrong but go back some code cycles and they would be right.

So if they are older guys it was likely true when they got started.


----------



## Adam12

One of them argued that the end of the pipe terminates inside a coupling. I told him that its not a termination because the pipe continues on.


----------



## Wirenuting

Adam12 said:


> One of them argued that the end of the pipe terminates inside a coupling. I told him that its not a termination because the pipe continues on.


The end of a pipe does terminate in a coupling and also the next piece of pipe begins in the same coupling. 
And the strap is holding the pipe up with all the screws pointed vertical. 

Ok,, I'm old,,, were did I leave my geritol?


----------



## Adam12

Wirenuting said:


> The end of a pipe does terminate in a coupling and also the next piece of pipe begins in the same coupling.
> And the strap is holding the pipe up with all the screws pointed vertical.
> 
> Ok,, I'm old,,, were did I leave my geritol?


Right next to the ******.:thumbup:


----------



## Wirenuting

Adam12 said:


> Right next to the ******.:thumbup:


I knew I forgot something when I walked thru the door.


----------



## BBQ

The rule used to say 'within 3' of a fitting' of course a coupling is a fitting as well as an LB etc. It was not that long ago they changed it to '3' from a termination'.


----------



## Shockdoc

I end up going 1/2 of the 10' for wall runs. Just a personal preference when it's mounted low and subject to the public.


----------



## kaboler

My canadian codebook is in the van, but I think it's 3 feet from a connection point and 6 feet on solid runs; so if you put them 1 foot from couplings on both sides of a 10 foot EMT, you'll need one in the middle. Because that's an 8 foot span.


----------



## Southeast Power

Is a coupling a fitting??


----------



## kaboler

jrannis said:


> Is a coupling a fitting??


In canada! Couplings and connectors. 3 feet from any of those.


----------



## Frasbee

Within 3' of a box/termination, 10' maximum thereafter.


----------



## tkb

3' from a coupling is the way I learned from Thomas Edison. :laughing:
Even though its not required by code, I think it is good practice.


----------



## Frasbee

jwjrw said:


> In addition, *each EMT run
> between termination points shall be securely fastened
> within 900 mm (3 ft) of each outlet box, junction box, device
> box, cabinet, conduit body, or other tubing termination.*


I'm a bit disturbed by this discovery. I don't recall ever reading this in the codebook.

Is that in the 2008?

I'd go grab mine but it's in my car and I don't feel like grabbing it.


----------



## Big John

Frasbee said:


> jwjrw said:
> 
> 
> 
> In addition, *each EMT run
> between termination points shall be securely fastened
> within 900 mm (3 ft) of each outlet box, junction box, device
> box, cabinet, conduit body, or other tubing termination.*
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a bit disturbed by this discovery. I don't recall ever reading this in the codebook...
Click to expand...

 Didn't your just say that very thing...? :blink:


Frasbee said:


> Within 3' of a box/termination, 10' maximum thereafter.


-John


----------



## Frasbee

I'm getting caught up in the wording, "conduit body" "tubing termination", if that inclues couplings then I have misinterpreted the code.


----------



## nitro71

Frasbee, I still call you Frisbee Dog, after the one poster from long ago on this or MH. Can't really recall..


----------



## Big John

Frasbee said:


> I'm getting caught up in the wording, "conduit body" "tubing termination", if that inclues couplings than I have misinterpreted the code.


 You, me, and everyone else. I do not think couplings are terminations; one support per stick is fine.

Conduit bodies are LBs and LRs, etc. where I would agree you do need a strap within 3'.

-John


----------



## Frasbee

nitro71 said:


> Frasbee, I still call you Frisbee Dog, after the one poster from long ago on this or MH. Can't really recall..


Never been on the MH forum, but I've been here since 2008. Which is a while ago now.


----------



## nitro71

Frasbee said:


> Never been on the MH forum, but I've been here since 2008. Which is a while ago now.


He had a picture of his dog catching a frisbee I thing.. I like giving you crap! :thumbup:


----------



## Frasbee

Big John said:


> You, me, and everyone else. I do not think couplings are terminations; one support per stick is fine.
> 
> Conduit bodies are LBs and LRs, etc. where I would agree you do need a strap within 3'.
> 
> -John


Okay, I just needed that clarified because I'm was beginning to worry I was spreading misinformation.

In any case, my opinion is 1 support per 10' is sparse, I prefer 2. But it's good to know when you're in a tight spot, or tight on material.


----------



## thegoldenboy

Frasbee said:


> I'm a bit disturbed by this discovery. I don't recall ever reading this in the codebook.
> 
> Is that in the 2008?
> 
> I'd go grab mine but it's in my car and I don't feel like grabbing it.


I just looked it up on my PDF and yeah it's legit. I was unaware of this, I've always dismissed the one guy who said they had to be within 3' of a coupling as just being old school and stuck in his ways. It's not the first time I've had my foot in my mouth.


----------



## nitro71

And my supply house stuck me with $24/100 on 3/4 EMT straps.. Way to much...


----------



## LJSMITH1

For those that are curious, a Coupling is considered a fitting.


----------



## Frasbee

LJSMITH1 said:


> For those that are curious, a Coupling is considered a fitting.


But I don't see "fitting" anywhere in that code article, therefore the support for every 10' still goes regardless of couplings? (For arguments sake.)


----------



## LJSMITH1

Frasbee said:


> But I don't see "fitting" anywhere in that code article, therefore the support for every 10' still goes regardless of couplings? (For arguments sake.)


No. Not the way I interpret the 2011 NEC 

358.30(A) "EMT Shall be securely fastened in place at least every 10 ft. In addition, each EMT run between termination points shall be securely fastened within 3 ft of each outlet box, junction box, device box, cabinet, conduit body, or *other tubing termination."*

"*other tubing termination*" would include couplings or connectors. A length of EMT termintates in either a connector or coupling. To me, this means that there should be a support within 3 ft of a coupling.

Article 100 Definition of a FITTING states:

"An accessory such as a locknut, bushing or other part of a wiring system that is intended to primarily perform a mechanical rather than an electrical function." 

FPN "Items such as condulets, conduit couplings, EMT connectors and couplings, and threadless connectors are considered fittings."


----------



## raider1

LJSMITH1 said:


> No. Not the way I interpret the 2011 NEC
> 
> 358.30(A) "EMT Shall be securely fastened in place at least every 10 ft. In addition, each EMT run between termination points shall be securely fastened within 3 ft of each outlet box, junction box, device box, cabinet, conduit body, or other tubing termination."
> 
> "other tubing termination" would include couplings or connectors. A length of EMT termintates in either a connector or coupling. To me, this means that there should be a support within 3 ft of a coupling.
> 
> Article 100 Definition of a FITTING states:
> 
> "An accessory such as a locknut, bushing or other part of a wiring system that is intended to primarily perform a mechanical rather than an electrical function."
> 
> FPN "Items such as condulets, conduit couplings, EMT connectors and couplings, and threadless connectors are considered fittings."


I disagree that "Other tubing termination" includes couplings and connectors. If that was the case there would be no need to mention boxes, conduit bodies etc.... because there would always be a connector that the tubing would terminate to.

Chris


----------



## LJSMITH1

raider1 said:


> I disagree that "Other tubing termination" includes couplings and connectors. If that was the case there would be no need to mention boxes, conduit bodies etc.... because there would always be a connector that the tubing would terminate to.
> 
> Chris


I think you are reading too much into this. Is an "Outlet box" a "Device Box"? 

I submit that it is, so there are redundancies in what was listed, and the list was not all inclusive, but rather examples. The fact that the words "fitting" or "coupling" or "connector" were not in that list does not mean that they are not included in the requirement. To me it is obvious that "other tubing termination" could be all of those things. I mean, what else could it be referring to??


----------



## Big John

LJSMITH1 said:


> I think you are reading too much into this. Is an "Outlet box" a "Device Box"?
> 
> I submit that it is, so there are redundancies in what was listed, and the list was not all inclusive, but rather examples. The fact that the words "fitting" or "coupling" or "connector" were not in that list does not mean that they are not included in the requirement. To me it is obvious that "other tubing termination" could be all of those things. I mean, what else could it be referring to??


 As one example, it could be referring to a case where the EMT is used as a sleeve and is not required to terminate inside a box, and has a simple bushing on the end.

I disagree that you need a support within 3' of a coupling. By your reading, we are required to have a bare minimum of two supports every ten feet. If that were the case, why even mention that EMT is allowed to be supported once every ten feet? That section would only apply to lengths of EMT longer than 16' feet, which I'm not sure even exist as a listed wiring method.

-John


----------



## LJSMITH1

Big John said:


> As one example, it could be referring to a case where the EMT is used as a sleeve and is not required to terminate inside a box, and has a simple bushing on the end.
> 
> I disagree that you need a support within 3' of a coupling. By your reading, we are required to have a bare minimum of two supports every ten feet. If that were the case, why even mention that EMT is allowed to be supported once every ten feet? That section would only apply to lengths of EMT longer than 16' feet, which I'm not sure even exist as a listed wiring method.
> 
> -John


I am not sure I understand your point. I didn't write the code, but it seems pretty clear that there needs to be at least one support every 10 feet in a raceway assembly. Some may argue that a termination is not a coupling, but I see "termination" to mean that it is the end of a conduit section. A Connector, bushing or coupling can terminate a 'run' or 'section' of EMT. 

To add more to this, there is an exception stated in 358.30(A)

"Exception No. 1: Fastening of unbroken lengths shall be permitted to be increased to a distance of 5 ft where structural members do not readily permit fastening within 3 ft." This mainly applies to roof supports and the like.

Also, there are some clear diagrams provided - see Exhibit 358.1 in the 2011 NEC. On the right side of the image it shows a box with EMT connected to it. 3' away is the first support. Then they show another support 4' away from that one. Then the coupling is shown at 10' from the box. If I do the math right, that would mean that the second strap would work out to be 3' from the coupling. This is repeated in scale for the next strap 10' away from that one. Of course, this is when using 10' sticks of EMT. 

There a similar discussion on MH's forum going on right now... along with a poll. Support within 3' of a coupling seems to be the accepted method (60% in favor)...especially if its transitioning from one type of raceway to the next.


----------



## Big John

LJSMITH1 said:


> I am not sure I understand your point. I didn't write the code, but it seems pretty clear that there needs to be at least one support every 10 feet in a raceway assembly....


 My point is exactly that. If it was the intent of the code to require a support within 3' of a coupling, then there would always be 2 supports per stick of pipe. What's the point of the section that say "EMT Shall be securely fastened in place at least every 10 ft." if you always need two straps per stick?

-John


----------



## Frasbee

This will change my piping habits a bit. So essentially every 10' of emt will have supports spaced 4' (max) of eachother.


----------



## LJSMITH1

Big John said:


> My point is exactly that. If it was the intent of the code to require a support within 3' of a coupling, then there would always be 2 supports per stick of pipe. What's the point of the section that say "EMT Shall be securely fastened in place at least every 10 ft." if you always need two straps per stick?
> 
> -John


 
I think you are assuming that every installation will have exact alignment with the standard stick length of 10'. We all know that stick length will vary and so will distances between couplings and/or boxes. The number of configurations are limitless. Plus, you wouldn't necessarily put a support right on the end of a run of EMT anyway. You would likely offset it 6" or so....


----------



## jwjrw

LJSMITH1 said:


> I think you are assuming that every installation will have exact alignment with the standard stick length of 10'. We all know that stick length will vary and so will distances between couplings and/or boxes. The number of configurations are limitless. Plus, you wouldn't necessarily put a support right on the end of a run of EMT anyway. You would likely offset it 6" or so....


The code used to say what you are saying it does now. They changed it. Fittings used to be included and no longer are. Read the whole thread. The articles you posted have already been posted.


----------



## LJSMITH1

Frasbee said:


> This will change my piping habits a bit. So essentially every 10' of EMT will have supports spaced 4' (max) of eachother.


 
Depending on box locations and other geometry issues, that might be the case. The minimum is 10' apart on a clear run of conduit. Since you can't put the supports over the couplings, they will likely need to be offset (equally) to one side or the other of the couplings. 

Don't forget it could be 3' of _either side_ of a coupling....


----------



## LJSMITH1

jwjrw said:


> The code used to say what you are saying it does now. They changed it. Fittings used to be included and no longer are. Read the whole thread. The articles you posted have already been posted.


 
I am looking in the 2011 NEC Handbook...is there a newer one?:blink:


----------



## jwjrw

LJSMITH1 said:


> I am looking in the 2011 NEC Handbook...is there a newer one?:blink:



A few code cycles back they took "fitting" out and made it termination. Before you had to support within 3ft of a coupling. You no longer do.


----------



## LJSMITH1

jwjrw said:


> A few code cycles back they took "fitting" out and made it termination. Before you had to support within 3ft of a coupling. You no longer do.


A fitting can be seen as a way to terminate a 'run' of EMT. As I illustrated before, the Article 100 definition of a *Fitting* IS a connector or a coupling. There is no NEC definition listed for what is meant by "termination" with regards to raceways, so...I go with what is implied...

*Raceway Termination* = Fitting = Connector, Coupling, Conduit Body, Threadless Connector, etc.


----------



## Rockyd

> I disagree that "Other tubing termination" includes couplings and connectors. If that was the case there would be no need to mention boxes, conduit bodies etc.... because there would always be a connector that the tubing would terminate to.
> 
> Chris


I think Chris’s thinking is crystal clear. I’ve personally met Chris, and done a multiday seminar with him and we had code panel experts there for the seminar. The man is well respected in the industry, I don’t know you, but think Chris probably has leg up on you in the industry for where the current school of thought is.




> think you are reading too much into this. Is an "Outlet box" a "Device Box"?





> I submit that it is, so there are redundancies in what was listed, and the list was not all inclusive, but rather examples. The fact that the words "fitting" or "coupling" or "connector" were not in that list does not mean that they are not included in the requirement. To me it is obvious that "other tubing termination" could be all of those things. I mean, what else could it be referring to??
> __________________
> Larry





> I am not sure I understand your point. I didn't write the code, but it seems pretty clear that there needs to be at least one support every 10 feet in a raceway assembly. Some may argue that a termination is not a coupling, but I see "termination" to mean that it is the end of a conduit section. Connector, bushing or coupling, it means that the
> 
> To add more to this, there is an exception stated in 358.30(A)
> 
> "Exception No. 1: Fastening of unbroken lengths shall be permitted to be increased to a distance of 5 ft where structural members do not readily permit fastening within 3 ft." This mainly applies to roof supports and the like.
> 
> Also, there are some clear diagrams provided - see Exhibit 358.1 in the 2011 NEC. On the right side of the image it shows a box with EMT connected to it. 3' away is the first support. Then they show another support 4' away from that one. Then the coupling is shown at 10' from the box. If I do the math right, that would mean that the second strap would work out to be 3' from the coupling. This is repeated in scale for the next strap 10' away from that one. Of course, this is when using 10' sticks of EMT.
> 
> There a similar discussion on MH's forum going on right now... along with a poll. Support within 3' of a coupling seems to be the accepted method (60% in favor)...especially if its transitioning from one type of raceway to the next.
> __________________
> Larry


*Larry, I hate to tell you this, but your wrong. What’s my proof? *

Do you have a copy of *Mike Holt’s “Changes to the NEC2008” *?

If not, buy one and look on page 138. Look at that graphic, and then tell me where you stand?

What’s the significance? 2008 and 2011 358.30(A) didn’t change, the verbiage is virtually the same. So I’m going with that school of thought till something more solid is marched out.


----------



## jwjrw

LJSMITH1 said:


> A fitting can be seen as a way to terminate a 'run' of EMT. As I illustrated before, the Article 100 definition of a *Fitting* IS a connector or a coupling. There is no NEC definition listed for what is meant by "termination" with regards to raceways, so...I go with what is implied...
> 
> *Raceway Termination* = Fitting = Connector, Coupling, Conduit Body, Threadless Connector, etc.



IMO it does not imply what you say it does. They would not of took the word fitting out if they wanted it included. In every county here I would be correct and you would not.


----------



## LJSMITH1

Rockyd said:


> I think Chris’s thinking is crystal clear. I’ve personally met Chris, and done a multiday seminar with him and we had code panel experts there for the seminar. The man is well respected in the industry, I don’t know you, but think Chris probably has leg up on you in the industry for where the current school of thought is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Larry, I hate to tell you this, but your wrong. What’s my proof? *
> 
> Do you have a copy of *Mike Holt’s “Changes to the NEC2008” *?
> 
> If not, buy one and look on page 138. Look at that graphic, and then tell me where you stand?
> 
> What’s the significance? 2008 and 2011 358.30(A) didn’t change, the verbiage is virtually the same. So I’m going with that school of thought till something more solid is marched out.


Ok. Let's just agree to disagree. The whole thing is all about interpretation.

FYI...I am talking about a smilar graphic in the 2011 NEC, but it is not the same as MH's 2008 version. In his, he clearly interprets that couplings are not part of the 3' requirement. 

The NEC should do the same thing to their graphic to make it clear...


----------



## Rockyd

LJSMITH1 said:


> Ok. Let's just agree to disagree. The whole thing is all about interpretation.
> 
> FYI...I am talking about a smilar graphic in the 2011 NEC, but it is not the same as MH's 2008 version. In his, he clearly interprets that couplings are not part of the 3' requirement.
> 
> The NEC should do the same thing to their graphic to make it clear...


Are you sure your looking at the NEC? NEC doesn't normally come with graphics... The NECH does. The reason I'm asking is that I have my code books (2008 & 2011) both open, and no graphics. The NECH is not the code. Lots of explaatory stuff in it.

If the industry has changed, and the school of thought is different, then I want to change. Currently, I'm sticking with what I have, as are the inspectors in my region.


----------



## LJSMITH1

jwjrw said:


> IMO it does not imply what you say it does. They would not of took the word fitting out if they wanted it included. In every county here I would be correct and you would not.


Why wouldn't the NEC just say that *couplings* are not included in the 3' requirement??


----------



## Big John

LJSMITH1 said:


> I think you are assuming that every installation will have exact alignment with the standard stick length of 10'. We all know that stick length will vary and so will distances between couplings and/or boxes....


 Yes, by and large those distances will get _smaller_, though. 

So, at the bare minimum, for a piece of pipe between 10' and 6'1" long, you're saying you need 2 straps.

But the code has an article saying it is permissible to run a length 10' with only one strap. This is what does not make sense to me. Do you believe this article was put in there exclusively for 20' lengths of conduit? 

The same circumstances would apply to the wording of 358.30(B). I don't believe it was the intent of the code to have extensive wording that only applies to a very rare 20' of EMT.

-John


----------



## LJSMITH1

Rockyd said:


> Are you sure your looking at the NEC? NEC doesn't normally come with graphics... The NECH does. The reason I'm asking is that I have my code books (2008 & 2011) both open, and no graphics. The NECH is not the code. Lots of explaatory stuff in it.
> 
> If the industry has changed, and the school of thought is different, then I want to change. Currently, I'm sticking with what I have, as are the inspectors in my region.


 
I have the 2011 NEC Handbook (hardcover) opened up to page 444. The handbook is FULL of graphics. The graphics are designed to explain the mandatory text.


----------



## Rockyd

LJSMITH1 said:


> Why wouldn't the NEC just say that *couplings* are not included in the 3' requirement??


Are you familiar with a typical industry practice of using a GRC couping as a transition from one method to another? The reason being is the GRC coupling is threaded, as the EMT coupling is not. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm just saying that there is more than one type of coupling , that gets used/abused in the industry.


----------



## raider1

LJSMITH1 said:


> I have the 2011 NEC Handbook (hardcover) opened up to page 444. The handbook is FULL of graphics. The graphics are designed to explain the mandatory text.


Yes, but the graphics and commentary in the NEC Handbook are NOT code and only the opinions of the authors of the handbook. They hold no more weight then does any other analysis book or NEC commentary.

Chris


----------



## Rockyd

LJSMITH1 said:


> I have the 2011 NEC Handbook (hardcover) opened up to page 444. The handbook is FULL of graphics. The graphics are designed to explain the mandatory text.


NECH is not code...and therefore, I'd like to know what the formal interpretation is? What the NFPA in Quincy Mass. is the rule (90.6) I'm running with 90.4.



Edit - Crickets chirping?


----------



## LJSMITH1

raider1 said:


> Yes, but the graphics and commentary in the NEC Handbook are NOT code and only the opinions of the authors of the handbook. They hold no more weight then does any other analysis book or NEC commentary.
> 
> Chris


I have the 2011 NFPA NEC Handbook (hardcover) by Mark Earley, P.E. and Jeffery Sargent. It is the SAME thing as the slimmed down NEC text codebook you are talking about. The commentary IS directly related to the code requirement and clearly defines the intent of the code. This is no independent analysis book.


----------



## Rockyd

Crickets chirping???:whistling2:


----------



## LJSMITH1

Rockyd said:


> Crickets chirping???:whistling2:


 
90.6 Formal Interpretations

There is a nice disclaimer in the commentary section.

...and then it comes full circle that all final interpretations of the code rules are the responsibility of the local AHJ.

So...since I am not an AHJ....whatever I think doesn't matter one bit!:thumbup:

Boy...the crickets are LOUD!:laughing:


----------



## raider1

LJSMITH1 said:


> I have the 2011 NFPA NEC Handbook (hardcover) by Mark Earley, P.E. and Jeffery Sargent. It is the SAME thing as the slimmed down NEC text codebook you are talking about.


It contains the text of the NEC, but the commentary is not part of the code.



> The additional commentary contained in the handbook is absolutely endorsed by the NFPA 70 committee.


No it is not, here is what is stated in the front cover of the handbook.

"The commentary and supplementary materials in this handbook are not a part of the _Code_ and do not constitute Formal Interpretations of the NFPA (which can be obtained only through requests processed by the responsible technical committees in accordance with the published procedures of the NFPA). The commentary and supplementary materials, therefore, solely reflect the personal opinions of the editor or other contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its technical committees."



> The commentary IS directly related to the code requirement and clearly defines the intent of the code. This is no independent analysis book.


It is every bit an independent analysis on the NEC, just as Mike Holt's understanding the NEC is.

Chris


----------



## Rockyd

> So...since I am not an AHJ....whatever I think doesn't matter one bit!


And there it is. What works in CT doesn't necessicarily fly in AK...Since I don't have an NECH on hand, I can't argue what it says. But if it is as you say, change maybe coming. Trip to the state inspectors office may prove to be interesting...

I keep in mind that your an engineer type, we approach the industry from diferent perspectives, but whatever the rules are, they are the same for all.


----------



## LJSMITH1

raider1 said:


> It contains the text of the NEC, but the commentary is not part of the code.
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not, here is what is stated in the front cover of the handbook.
> 
> "The commentary and supplementary materials in this handbook are not a part of the _Code_ and do not constitute Formal Interpretations of the NFPA (which can be obtained only through requests processed by the responsible technical committees in accordance with the published procedures of the NFPA). The commentary and supplementary materials, therefore, solely reflect the personal opinions of the editor or other contributors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the NFPA or its technical committees."
> 
> 
> 
> It is every bit an independent analysis on the NEC, just as Mike Holt's understanding the NEC is.
> 
> Chris


You are correct. I just read that as you posted. Thanks for pointing that out.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to the AHJ..


----------



## LJSMITH1

Rockyd said:


> And there it is. What works in CT doesn't necessicarily fly in AK...Since I don't have an NECH on hand, I can't argue what it says. But if it is as you say, change maybe coming. Trip to the state inspectors office may prove to be interesting...
> 
> I keep in mind that your an engineer type, we approach the industry from diferent perspectives, but whatever the rules are, they are the same for all.


 
I honestly think there are a number of ways to solve an issue, and there might be more than one good way. Part of the reason for me to get into these discussions, is to force myself to get deeper into the code to better understand the finer points of information it contains.

I interface quite often with EC's and Electricians, and I certainly listen to what they have to say as it directly relates to the job I have to do. There is a definite difference in interpretation of some things, and I welcome the discussion...if not for me to learn something, but also have the opportunity to share what I know.
:thumbup:


----------



## raider1

LJSMITH1 said:


> You are correct. I just read that as you posted. Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> At the end of the day, it all comes down to the AHJ..


Your welcome, and Yes it all comes down to the AHJ.

Chris


----------



## raider1

LJSMITH1 said:


> I honestly think there are a number of ways to solve an issue, and there might be more than one good way. Part of the reason for me to get into these discussions, is to force myself to get deeper into the code to better understand the finer points of information it contains.
> 
> I interface quite often with EC's and Electricians, and I certainly listen to what they have to say as it directly relates to the job I have to do. There is a definite difference in interpretation of some things, and I welcome the discussion...if not for me to learn something, but also have the opportunity to share what I know.
> :thumbup:


We are all here for the same thing, knowledge (Except for a few troublemakes:laughing.:thumbup:

Chris


----------



## Rockyd

LJSMITH1 said:


> I honestly think there are a number of ways to solve an issue, and there might be more than one good way. Part of the reason for me to get into these discussions, is to force myself to get deeper into the code to better understand the finer points of information it contains.
> 
> I interface quite often with EC's and Electricians, and I certainly listen to what they have to say as it directly relates to the job I have to do. There is a definite difference in interpretation of some things, and I welcome the discussion...if not for me to learn something, but also have the opportunity to share what I know.
> :thumbup:


 
So let's meet in Utah (half way between AK and CT, and not surprisingly home of Raider!) and have a beer, and crack a code book...

Good debate. Can't be emotional when things are in black and white, and what exactly a code issue is short of a formal interpretation. 

Second thought, I'll take a rain check...Fur Rondy this weekend in Alaska..going to go have some fun:thumbup:


----------



## Frasbee

For those doing the work, as long as you ensure there is support in close proximity to your raceway's weakest points (couplings/connectors), you'll probably be just fine regardless of which the interpretations you prefer. If it looks good and is sturdy, it's probably above code.

For those bidding the work, you may continue the debate. :laughing:


----------



## Rockyd

Frasbee said:


> For those doing the work, as long as you ensure there is support in close proximity to your raceway's weakest points (couplings/connectors), you'll probably be just fine regardless of which the interpretations you prefer. If it looks good and is sturdy, it's probably above code.
> 
> For those bidding the work, you may continue the debate. :laughing:


I'm not done yet!!! Bidding and the law are two whole different issues. Smart money says that if your in rooms and long halls, a coupling for every 7 feet. Walls? probably even more. Course I want to MC where it is permissable for my number...need to have a number to catch the job, not see if I can be a cost item. But hey, if it's a job call-out, no problem EMT, GRC, Robroy or class1, Div1 or both, let's go!

So in the words of "Dirty Harry" "Go ahead, make my day!":jester:GRRR!


----------



## ColoradoMaster3768

Adam12 said:


> Some of my co-workers seem to think that emt must be supported within 3' of a coupling.
> According to the NEC.
> 
> Yes, no?
> 
> I'm 100% positive you don't have to.


Great question "Adam12."

Most conduits terminate in couplings or connectors. If couplings are not "back-to-back" terminations, then what are they?

The following retrieved February 25th, 2011 from http://code.necplus.org/index.php?&sso=6a5656de-df3c-4937-ad7a-def1440243f5 [_NEC Plus, 2011 edition of the NEC_]

_Chapter 3 Wiring Methods and Materials :: ARTICLE 358 Electrical Metallic Tubing: Type EMT :: II. Installation_

*70-2011:358.30(358.10-358.60)702011code**358.30 Securing and Supporting. *

*Changed From 2008*
*• 358.30(C): Deleted the rules describing the conditions where raceways can be installed unsupported. *

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). 

*(A)* *Securely Fastened.* EMT shall be securely fastened in place at least every 3 m (10 ft). In 
addition, each EMT run between termination points shall be securely fastened within 900 mm (3 ft) of each outlet box, junction box, device box, cabinet, conduit body, or other tubing termination. 

_Exception No. 1: Fastening of unbroken lengths shall be permitted to be increased to a distance of 1.5 m (5 ft) where structural members do not readily permit fastening within 900 mm (3 ft). _

_Exception No. 2: For concealed work in finished buildings or prefinished wall panels where such securing is impracticable, unbroken lengths (without coupling) of EMT shall be permitted to be fished. _

*(B)* *Supports.* Horizontal runs of EMT supported by openings through framing members at intervals not greater than 3 m (10 ft) and securely fastened within 900 mm (3 ft) of termination points shall be permitted.


----------



## AcePC

*EMT Supports*

Question about EMT supports. Code states to support within 3' of termination point or 5' with exception. If there are two termination points less that 3' away from each other (roughly 2') and runs horizontal through a stud, 
does the pipe need to have a separate support between the two termination points?


----------



## thegoldenboy

AcePC said:


> Question about EMT supports. Code states to support within 3' of termination point or 5' with exception. If there are two termination points less that 3' away from each other (roughly 2') and runs horizontal through a stud,
> does the pipe need to have a separate support between the two termination points?



Quick answer, no. I'll cite an article later unless someone beats me to it.


----------



## backstay

AcePC said:


> Question about EMT supports. Code states to support within 3' of termination point or 5' with exception. If there are two termination points less that 3' away from each other (roughly 2') and runs horizontal through a stud,
> does the pipe need to have a separate support between the two termination points?


No, up to that 3 ft length. Say a stub between boxes


----------



## don_resqcapt19

Larry,
I suggest you go back to the ROPs and ROCs from when the word "fitting" was removed from the code section in question. The panel statements make it clear that the rule does not require a support within 3' of every coupling.


----------



## btharmy

No supports are required within 3' of a coupling. There, that is settled.


----------

