# EMT offset



## Saloomen (Jun 23, 2011)

I have a j-box from a disconnect about 12" apart ,having a hard time offsetting the EMT @ both ends to be able to put a clamp,do i need a clamp if they are so close together?


----------



## oldtimer (Jun 10, 2010)

Saloomen said:


> I have a j-box from a disconnect about 12" apart ,having a hard time offsetting the EMT @ both ends to be able to put a clamp,do i need a clamp if they are so close together?


 What size E M T?


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Saloomen said:


> I have a j-box from a disconnect about 12" apart ,having a hard time offsetting the EMT @ both ends to be able to put a clamp,do i need a clamp if they are so close together?


You don't need a support provided that there are no couplings between the disconnect and the box. (See 358.30(C) 2008 NEC) (You might also realize that that section does not appear in the 2011 NEC)

Chris


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Make the offset in a full piece of pipe, then cut it off. That's the only way to make an offset in a nipple.


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

12'' apart? Are you worried the pipe will run off if you don't strap it down?


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

Frasbee said:


> ...Are you worried the pipe will run off if you don't strap it down?


 Pretty much what I'm thinking. It might be code to strap it (part C was deleted from 2011 :blink, but I wouldn't bother, personally. 

If those enclosures are well secured, there's absolutely no way the pipe is going anywhere.

-John


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

I would never in a million years think about strapping a 12" EMT chunk between enclosures let alone offsetting it.


----------



## Loose Neutral (Jun 3, 2009)

What if the holes are offset an 1 "


----------



## Jlarson (Jun 28, 2009)

Loose Neutral said:


> What if the holes are offset an 1 "


That's a different situation then offsetting it just to strap it to the wall.


----------



## Jsmit319 (Sep 23, 2010)

2011 change applies to Articles: 342, 344, 352, 355, 358. Basically, it was thought the language was too confusing in the 2008 version, causing confusion among inspecting agencies and wasn't enforced uniformly. Now, if the length of conduit is 36" or less, it should not require support between boxes, panel boards, etc. because it is reasoned that the connectors and KO's provide adequate support, due to new more stringent UL listing requirements for KO's. The intent of the change is so that short raceways (18" - 36") no longer require additional support.

Here, Oregon Electrical Specialty Code re-instated the 2008 language. :blink:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Jsmit319 said:


> 2011 change applies to Articles: 342, 344, 352, 355, 358. Basically, it was thought the language was too confusing in the 2008 version, causing confusion among inspecting agencies and wasn't enforced uniformly. Now, if the length of conduit is 36" or less, it should not require support between boxes, panel boards, etc. because it is reasoned that the connectors and KO's provide adequate support, due to new more stringent UL listing requirements for KO's. The intent of the change is so that short raceways (18" - 36") no longer require additional support.
> 
> Here, Oregon Electrical Specialty Code re-instated the 2008 language. :blink:


There is nothing in the code to support the idea that the conduit terminations can be used to support the conduit. With the revision back to the 2005 code wording all conduits and nipples, no matter how short, require a support within 36" of the conduit termination.
While I agree that most inspectors do permit the conduit termination to support the conduit, this has no basis in the code. The change in the 2008 code was correct, except the CMP changed the length that was to be permitted to be supported by the conduit terminations from 36" in the proposal to 18" in the accepted code rule.


----------



## Jsmit319 (Sep 23, 2010)

It's not exactly about what the code says, it's what it doesn't say now. The idea was to make the provisions less complicated. Knock-outs are generally governed by UL Product Standard 50 and that standard has been strengthened so that KO's are required to be more robust which reduces the need for additional support. Although I think the concept of the 2008 provision is valid, it does have some issues with consistency. If a contractor uses a 24" piece of 2" emt as a nipple chase, he doesn't have to support it. According to 2008 language, if he uses a coupler between two 12 inch lengths, it means he _would_ have to support it. Same overall length with two different supporting requirements and frankly, I don't see any need for either installation to have additional support. Afterall, support is required within 3', generally, and 5' if there are no structural members readily available so one can assume that conduit installations are very stable at lengths under 3'. So where does the code say you have to strap a length of conduit shorter than 36" in 2011? It doesn't. It does say "within" 3', implying a longer length of conduit being used for that provision. Each AHJ may have a different interpretation of this and may write their own specialty code to deal with it, but as far as my inspections go, I'm going to be very lenient with the nipple/support issue. At any rate, I know that this will spark a wild debate over what the heck is really meant so look for another code change in 2014 to try to clarify this.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

I think the code is very clear that you must secure the conduit within 3' of its termination. There is nothing to suggest that a shorter conduit does not need to be secured. The fact that the code says it must be secured within 3' does not even remotely imply that shorter sections do not need to be secured. The code wording in the 2011 code and codes prior to 2008 require all conduits and nipples to be secured no matter what length they are. 
I agree that most inspectors have let short lengths of conduit be supported by the conduit terminations and I don't have a problem with that, but it is not permitted by the code language.


----------



## Jsmit319 (Sep 23, 2010)

true. but let me play Devil's Advocate. by code langauage you would have to support any length of conduit whether it was 2", 4", 10", etc. that scenario is simply not reasonable. Believe me this has been debated ad nauseum and frequently very hotly. An inspector or AHJ has to determine what the code intent is in the real world and that is where we get into that murkey "intent" area. In my opinion, not requiring a support on conduit less than 36" is reasonable. The only caveat would be where it's clearly shown a support would be necessary. Check out the the Analysis of Changes, NEC 2011 and you'll see where the reasoning and intent lie.


----------



## Electrical Student (Jun 6, 2011)

Use a "mini" no offsets, call it a day.


----------



## Jsmit319 (Sep 23, 2010)

nice car and it might even fit in an electrical room.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Jsmit319 said:


> true. but let me play Devil's Advocate. by code langauage you would have to support any length of conduit whether it was 2", 4", 10", etc. that scenario is simply not reasonable. Believe me this has been debated ad nauseum and frequently very hotly. An inspector or AHJ has to determine what the code intent is in the real world and that is where we get into that murkey "intent" area. In my opinion, not requiring a support on conduit less than 36" is reasonable. The only caveat would be where it's clearly shown a support would be necessary. *Check out the the Analysis of Changes, NEC 2011 and you'll see where the reasoning and intent lie.*


That would be the IAEI Analysis of changes book. That assessment is the authors opinion of the intent not an official interpretation.

I have read that comment in their analysis and don't agree that with the deletion of the XXX.30(C) sections that it clearly means that conduits under 36" of length don't require securing and supporting.

Chris


----------



## Jsmit319 (Sep 23, 2010)

Granted it is an opinion, and the author does give himself a nice out by saying that the decision is best made in the field by the AHJ. I do, however, agree with that opinion because I do know the support rule _3' and 5') was made with having a conduit run greater than 3' terminate in a box, panel board, etc. The intent was to make sure the pipe is supported at both ends and adequately secured in the middle. It's very clear about where the supports must be in that case. Literal following of code language would be ridiculous when you deal with shorter pieces of conduit. What do I do with it when I go inspect? OK Charlie, you have a 3" piece of conduit between two panel boards, so you need to strap it before I pass it? That's why I'm saying, yes the code says "within 3 feet", but I believe it was meant for conduit runs _over_ three feet. 2008 language tried to clarify this, but I think failed in some ways to accomplish what it was meant to do.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Jsmit319 said:


> true. but let me play Devil's Advocate. by code langauage you would have to support any length of conduit whether it was 2", 4", 10", etc. that scenario is simply not reasonable. ...


I fully agree that it would not be reasonable, but it is very clearly what the code requires. There is no exception to the rule that requires support within 36" of the conduit termination. There are a lot of things like this in the code where the "experts" say it doesn't really say what it says and this is one of those things. If the CMP intends that lengths of 36" or less can be supported by the conduit terminations, then they should have accepted Ryan Jackson's proposal for the 2008 code as it was written. The CMP is way off base on this one.


----------



## Jsmit319 (Sep 23, 2010)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> I fully agree that it would not be reasonable, but it is very clearly what the code requires. There is no exception to the rule that requires support within 36" of the conduit termination. There are a lot of things like this in the code where the "experts" say it doesn't really say what it says and this is one of those things. If the CMP intends that lengths of 36" or less can be supported by the conduit terminations, then they should have accepted Ryan Jackson's proposal for the 2008 code as it was written. The CMP is way off base on this one.


 I agree the CMP is way off base, and they should address this issue so that it is both reasonable and clear. As it stands now, it's left to the AHJ to make the call on what is acceptable or not. What I would let pass is not necessarily what another inspector would accept in another jurisdiction. I'm just fielding my interpretation of the intent of the code regarding lengths of conduit less than 36" and applying a small dose of common sense (a feature a lot of inspectors lack). And you are correct in saying the code is repleat with examples like this. Securing MC within 12" of a termination is a good example. If you have a 4" piece of 12-2 w/ gnd MC running between two boxes, are you going to secure it with a staple? Probably not, but according to 330.30(B) you'd be in violation. So, in the end, when it comes down to situations where the issue is vague, (the point where I disagree with you about how clear the code is in this case), it comes down to intent, history, and context to make the determination and that's why I take the position I do here. (Can you guess I don't have anything better to do than to argue about miniscule code issues.)


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

2014 proposal.
"Exception: Straight sections of conduit less than 36" in length shall be permitted to be supproted by the conduit terminations.


----------



## Jsmit319 (Sep 23, 2010)

I like it!


----------



## ry24000 (Jun 30, 2011)

Saloomen said:


> I have a j-box from a disconnect about 12" apart ,having a hard time offsetting the EMT @ both ends to be able to put a clamp,do i need a clamp if they are so close together?


Don't strap it until the AHJ says to!

Put somethng behind the "NIPPLE". Wood, Strut/kindorff/u channel or what ever you may call it. and the appropriate strap. some 1 hole straps are designed to "stand off".


----------

