# Strapping MC Cable to EMT pipe?



## pawirenut (May 28, 2008)

Is their a code against strapping mc cable against existing emt to support it with cable ties?


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

not that I know of. Do it all the time and no AHJ has turned it down.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

violation 300.11 B (2005)


----------



## DipsyDoodleDandy (Dec 21, 2009)

*...*



waco said:


> not that I know of. Do it all the time and no AHJ has turned it down.


ditto (for small mc)


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

wildleg said:


> violation 300.11 B (2005)


Yepper.:thumbsup:


----------



## CTshockhazard (Aug 28, 2009)

Depends on if there are conductors in that EMT.


----------



## Magnettica (Jan 23, 2007)

CTshockhazard said:


> Depends on if there are conductors in that EMT.


Who would ever run conductors in EMT?


----------



## JoeKP (Nov 16, 2009)

Magnettica said:


> Who would ever run conductors in EMT?


I agree, i hear that the new guys just run EMT to support their wires:no::jester:


----------



## Frasbee (Apr 7, 2008)

JoeKP said:


> I agree, i hear that the new guys just run EMT to support their wires:no::jester:


Guilty as charged.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*mc cable*

How far apart are your ties?


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

RIVETER said:


> How far apart are your ties?


What difference does this make?


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

RIVETER said:


> How far apart are your ties?


Doesn't matter, 300.11(B) does not permit a raceway to support a cable unless the raceway is identified for the purpose no matter how far apart the cable ties are.

Chris


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*MC to EMT*

Raider1, my response was "tongue in cheek", but I accept your post as true if no one else says differently. I will say that I have violated that section many times. The integrity of all the piping systems never was compromised...but the BOOK is the CODE.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

RIVETER said:


> Raider1, my response was "tongue in cheek", but I accept your post as true if no one else says differently. I will say that I have violated that section many times. The integrity of all the piping systems never was compromised...but the BOOK is the CODE.


:laughing:. It's right there in the book.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*MC to EMT*



NolaTigaBait said:


> :laughing:. It's right there in the book.


 That's what I heard.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

raider1 said:


> Doesn't matter, 300.11(B) does not permit a raceway to support a cable unless the raceway is identified for the purpose no matter how far apart the cable ties are.
> 
> Chris


 Bingo. I can't stand when MC is strapped to conduit.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*MC cable to EMT*



william1978 said:


> Bingo. I can't stand when MC is strapped to conduit.


 Sounds like I am not the only VIOLATOR.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

RIVETER said:


> Sounds like I am not the only VIOLATOR.


 No, you wouldn't be the only one doing it. Strapping to conduit with tywraps is something that drives me up the wall.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*MC cable to EMT*



william1978 said:


> No, you wouldn't be the only one doing it. Strapping to conduit with tywraps is something that drives me up the wall.


 Okay, I will have to retract part of what I said. I have never strapped piping of any system with ty-wraps. I have supported piping systems from one to another...in a pinch. Such as suspending a minnie via an all thread rod to another minnie.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

RIVETER said:


> Okay, I will have to retract part of what I said. I have never strapped piping of any system with ty-wraps. I have supported piping systems from one to another...in a pinch. Such as suspending a minnie via an all thread rod to another minnie.


 Were the straps connected together? If so I would say it wasn't a violation.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*MC cable to EMT*



william1978 said:


> Were the straps connected together? If so I would say it wasn't a violation.


 Yes, via the all-thread rod and tightened with 1/4 inch hex nuts.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

RIVETER said:


> Yes, via the all-thread rod and tightened with 1/4 inch hex nuts.


 No problem IMO.:thumbsup:


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*MC cable to EMT*



william1978 said:


> No problem IMO.:thumbsup:


 Great, I was just about to call the General Electric Appliance Park and tell them to get ready for the tear out.:laughing:


----------



## JoeKP (Nov 16, 2009)

so when doing a boiler, and running a thermostat wire, you aren't allowed to run it along the EMT, and taping/wrapping it to the EMT?


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*MC cable to EMT*



JoeKP said:


> so when doing a boiler, and running a thermostat wire, you aren't allowed to run it along the EMT, and taping/wrapping it to the EMT?


 Are you talking about 24 volt t-stats or signal, as in dissimilar metals eg. Antimony and Constantine?


----------



## rdr (Oct 25, 2009)

JoeKP said:


> so when doing a boiler, and running a thermostat wire, you aren't allowed to run it along the EMT, and taping/wrapping it to the EMT?


Yes you are. Read 300.11 in its entirety.

On a different note, before all the naysayers jump up and scream how code is code you do what it says it is what it is blah blah blah........other than the fact it looks like hammered dog ****e what is the practical logic behind not being allowed to strap MC to conduit?


----------



## seo (Oct 28, 2008)

JoeKP said:


> so when doing a boiler, and running a thermostat wire, you aren't allowed to run it along the EMT, and taping/wrapping it to the EMT?


If you comply with section 300.11 (B) (2) you can support your class 2 circuit conductors to the raceway.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*MC cable to EMT*



rdr said:


> Yes you are. Read 300.11 in its entirety.
> 
> On a different note, before all the naysayers jump up and scream how code is code you do what it says it is what it is blah blah blah........other than the fact it looks like hammered dog ****e what is the practical logic behind not being allowed to strap MC to conduit?


 I guess you would be the judge. It depends on how you define WORKMAN LIKE MANNER. Most electrical work is concealed because the customer does not necessarily want to see it. It is NOT concealed because the electrician is embarrassed of his work.


----------



## rdr (Oct 25, 2009)

RIVETER said:


> It is NOT concealed because the electrician is embarrassed of his work.


I never said it was but you'd still be a little embarrassed if a foreman owner etc looked at something, anything you did and said....WTF is THAT? :whistling2:

That and I do it for me more than for you. It doesn't take that much extra time.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*MC to EMT*



rdr said:


> I never said it was but you'd still be a little embarrassed if a foreman owner etc looked at something, anything you did and said....WTF is THAT? :whistling2:
> 
> That and I do it for me more than for you. It doesn't take that much extra time.


 Good answer. Doing the job correctly should be so ingrained in a person that it WOULD take longer to do it incorrectly.


----------



## Shado (Jan 1, 2009)

rdr said:


> Yes you are. Read 300.11 in its entirety.
> 
> On a different note, before all the naysayers jump up and scream how code is code you do what it says it is what it is blah blah blah........other than the fact it looks like hammered dog ****e *what is the practical logic behind not being allowed to strap MC to conduit*?


I would think it would fall under the magnet theory......it would attract everyone else adding MC in the area to just tie to it also....adding weight and eventually just making a BFM....


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

Regarding 300.11, I think the key word is "any" in the part saying, "...under any of the following conditions."

300.11(B) wording is clumsy, but what in the code isn't?


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

> what is the practical logic behind not being allowed to strap MC to conduit?


What happens to the MC cable down the road when the conduit is removed? Does the person removing the conduit strap the MC or just leave it to dangle?

Chris


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

RIVETER said:


> I have supported piping systems from one to another...in a pinch. Such as suspending a minnie via an all thread rod to another minnie.


That is still a violation of 300.11(B). You are using a raceway to support another raceway.

Chris


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

raider1 said:


> That is still a violation of 300.11(B). You are using a raceway to support another raceway.
> 
> Chris


Better read the whole thing.

If the conduit is removed, then the tradesperson is faced with securing the MC in some other fashion.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

waco said:


> Better read the whole thing.


I did, where does it say that you can support a raceway via 2 mini straps connected together and connected to another raceway unless the raceway is identified for the purpose?

300.11(B) does not permit a raceway to support anopther raceway unless identified for the purpose.

Chris


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

I'm suprised to hear electricians say that they do this all the time. This is soooooo not allowed in my area (an instant an unequivocal violation)


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

I'll stay with this because I think the code is ambivalent enough without us adding to the confusion.

I think paragraph 300.11(B)(3) is the relevant "any." To me, that means any EMT installed and supported properly can be used to support other wiring methods.


----------



## bobelectric (Feb 24, 2007)

raider1 said:


> What happens to the MC cable down the road when the conduit is removed? Does the person removing the conduit strap the MC or just leave it to dangle?
> 
> Chris


 

When we get a job to take out abandoned com lines/ data wires,we offer to empty out unused wires in old conduit,leaving an empty pathway to the next project.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

raider1 said:


> I did, where does it say that you can support a raceway via 2 mini straps connected together and connected to another raceway unless the raceway is identified for the purpose?
> 
> 300.11(B) does not permit a raceway to support anopther raceway unless identified for the purpose.
> 
> Chris


I agree, it's a violation any way you slice it....


----------



## JoeKP (Nov 16, 2009)

raider1 said:


> unless the raceway is identified for the purpose?
> 
> 300.11(B)
> 
> Chris












+










=


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

raider1 said:


> That is still a violation of 300.11(B). You are using a raceway to support another raceway.
> 
> Chris


 I think he is using one bolt and two standoff straps so the conduit is never supporting the other conduit.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

william1978 said:


> I think he is using one bolt and two standoff straps so the conduit is never supporting the other conduit.


How do you figure. He's using a standoff back to back to secure it. At least thats how I understand it.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

NolaTigaBait said:


> How do you figure. He's using a standoff back to back to secure it. At least thats how I understand it.


 It is only one bolt for two stand off straps.


----------



## adam4all (Sep 14, 2008)

Great thread.

I know someone who got busted by an inspector doing this in Canada, even though you see it everywhere.

I will have to look up the code rule - because there are tons of sparky's here that seem to think this is O.K. (me included until today)

The previous post about just adding tons of MC (BX) to a pipe run - or what happens when the emt is removed make this a common sense way of looking at this code rule.

Thanks


----------



## htneighbors (Jan 23, 2009)

"The purpose of 300.11(B)(3) is to prevent cables from being attached to the exterior of a raceway." - NEC Handbook commentary after 300.11.(B)(3)


----------



## rdr (Oct 25, 2009)

Raceway is "identified for the purpose"

So they make special raceways just for supporting MC? Ridiculous....


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

htneighbors said:


> "The purpose of 300.11(B)(3) is to prevent cables from being attached to the exterior of a raceway." - NEC Handbook commentary after 300.11.(B)(3)


Doesn't make sense since the stipulation of 300.11(B)(3) is that the pipe is supported IAW 314.23.

I'll keep doing it and, the three conditions (1), (2), and (3) are addressed by the word ANY and is permissive, not prohibitive.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

rdr said:


> Raceway is "identified for the purpose"
> 
> So they make special raceways just for supporting MC? Ridiculous....


There are some channel raceway systems (Unistrut) that are identified for supporting other raceways and liminaires.

Chris


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

waco said:


> Doesn't make sense since the stipulation of 300.11(B)(3) is that the pipe is supported IAW 314.23.


314.23(E) & (F) permit a raceway to support a box under the specified circumstances. 314.23 does not permit a raceway to support another raceway.



> I'll keep doing it and, the three conditions (1), (2), and (3) are addressed by the word ANY and is permissive, not prohibitive.


Correct, a raceway can support another cable or raceway under any of those 3 conditions.

Problem is that none of those conditions permit EMT to support MC cable or another EMT via 2 mini straps.

Chris


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

waco said:


> I'll keep doing it and, the three conditions (1), (2), and (3) are addressed by the word ANY and is permissive, not prohibitive.


Hack work.


----------



## jwjrw (Jan 14, 2010)

Its common here to strap mc to the emt going to the top of the panel when circuits are added. Always thought it was legal never seen it turned down.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

jwjrw said:


> Its common here to strap mc to the emt going to the top of the panel when circuits are added. Always thought it was legal never seen it turned down.


If I was an inspector , i wouldn't say much about it either....but, it's still a violation. I'm also the same guy that puts romex in tubing to an outdoor panel:jester:...I'm pretty sure this makes me a........HACK!


----------



## rdr (Oct 25, 2009)

raider1 said:


> There are some channel raceway systems (Unistrut) that are identified for supporting other raceways and liminaires.
> 
> Chris


Didn't realize strut was considered a raceway....:whistling2:


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

rdr said:


> Didn't realize strut was considered a raceway....:whistling2:


Solid strut could be a raceway with the proper end caps and cover.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

rdr said:


> Didn't realize strut was considered a raceway....:whistling2:


Thats OK we won't hold it against you. 


Check out article 384 of the NEC, I have used strut as raceway a couple of times. As William pointed out you use the solid backed type (no holes) and there is cover that snaps on the front. It can work pretty slick for the right application. You can support lighting fixtures from it and use it to bring the power to the fixture.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

NolaTigaBait said:


> If I was an inspector , i wouldn't say much about it either....but, it's still a violation. I'm also the same guy that puts romex in tubing to an outdoor panel...I'm pretty sure this makes me a........HACK!


Plastic bags will last 600 years in a landfill covered by dirt and all kinds of nasty microbes.

Some here are very anal when it comes to simple things that are not code compliant.

I know.. I'm a HACK.. :laughing::laughing::laughing::laughing:


----------



## JoeKP (Nov 16, 2009)

so sad, but today i actually taped 2 coax wires to a piece of EMT (don't , its only temp)


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

I never thought I would see the day, he told me it would happen and I never believed him but now the day has come.




























_You all want to be just like Peter D.​_


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Bob, we are all just a bunch of hacks living in your world. I take pride in my hackery.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> _You all want to be just like Peter D.
> _


 I thought it was "Be like Mike" not be like Peter.:laughing:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

NolaTigaBait said:


> Bob, we are all just a bunch of hacks living in your world. I take pride in my hackery.


I have strapped cables to EMT, probably will again but it is hack. It's pure laziness on our part.


----------



## B4T (Feb 10, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> I have strapped cables to EMT, probably will again but it is hack. It's pure laziness on our part.


I don't agree with that :no:

You are not creating any kind of hazard that leads to personal injury.

If Mass. decided to not follow that article, NOTHING changes safety wise.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

Bob Badger said:


> I have strapped cables to EMT, probably will again but it is hack. It's pure laziness on our part.


 I have done it a time or two, but like you said it is lazy.


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

william1978 said:


> I have done it a time or two, but like you said it is lazy.


So, we've all pretty much done this?:laughing:


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

Black4Truck said:


> I don't agree with that :no:
> 
> You are not creating any kind of hazard that leads to personal injury.


I could not care less, if I am not following the code I am hacking.



> If Mass. decided to not follow that article, NOTHING changes safety wise.


MA has not amended that away, you can get failed on it.


----------



## Mr. Sparkle (Jan 27, 2009)

It's legal, you just have to look in the Liquidated Damages" section of the code book.


----------



## JohnSham (Jan 7, 2010)

*Twist Ties*

I've always used twist ties to hold mc to emt and emt to emt sometimes. We use it to hold utters together sometimes for increased milk production as well. I"ve never been red tagged by Bob for this.


----------



## user4818 (Jan 15, 2009)

Bob Badger said:


> I never thought I would see the day, he told me it would happen and I never believed him but now the day has come.
> 
> _You all want to be just like Peter D.​_


Once you come to terms with that reality, life suddenly gets a whole lot better. :thumbsup:


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

NolaTigaBait said:


> So, we've all pretty much done this?:laughing:


 Yep, but Bob has never said anything about it so I'm going tp keep doing it.:laughing:


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

JohnSham said:


> I've always used twist ties to hold mc to emt and emt to emt sometimes. We use it to hold utters together sometimes for increased milk production as well. I"ve never been red tagged by Bob for this.


 Sounds like Bob is a hack himself. Is he one of those multi trade inspectors?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 20, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> _You all want to be just like Peter D. _


I don't want to be like Peter D. Not at all. I just want to do hack work like he does. :laughing:


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

480sparky said:


> I don't want to be like Peter D. Not at all. I just want to do hack work like he does. :laughing:


 Don't we all.:thumbup:


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

It is a closed issue with me and if you ever reach my level of hack, you'll be doing good. So, FU.... very much.

If pipe is installed IAW 314.23, it can support other "raceways" and, in this case, MC is a raceway. Get over it.


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

mc is a raceway ? wow, that's a new one. dude, hack all you want, but you aren't going to convice anyone with your lame arguments. noone cares if you don't want to follow the code rules, so get over it.


----------



## RIVETER (Sep 26, 2009)

*MC cable to EMT*



waco said:


> It is a closed issue with me and if you ever reach my level of hack, you'll be doing good. So, FU.... very much.
> 
> If pipe is installed IAW 314.23, it can support other "raceways" and, in this case, MC is a raceway. Get over it.


 I know you meant that MC houses conductors...but it's not a raceway. I slip up too, but I know what you meant.


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

RIVETER said:


> I know you meant that MC houses conductors...but it's not a raceway. I slip up too, but I know what you meant.


No, he didn't just slip up, he doesn't know any better.

Roger


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

RIVETER said:


> I know you meant that MC houses conductors...but it's not a raceway. I slip up too, but I know what you meant.


Which is why I used quotation marks. I think this is another ambivalent section in the code and since none of the AHJs I deal with have had a problem with cable being supported by conduit, neither do I.

As for Roger, I wonder what part of "FU" he didn't understand.

I should have been more concise in this "...in this case, MC is a raceway..." I was referring to the argument, not the physical ( and trade) differences between cables and raceways.


----------



## Bob Badger (Apr 19, 2009)

waco said:


> So, FU.... very much.


What does Florida University have to do with it?


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

Bob Badger said:


> What does Florida University have to do with it?


That must be the part. Figures.

Does Floriduh have universities?


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

waco said:


> It is a closed issue with me and if you ever reach my level of hack, you'll be doing good. So, FU.... very much.
> 
> If pipe is installed IAW 314.23, it can support other "raceways" and, in this case, MC is a raceway. Get over it.


Waco, how in the hell does 314.23 permit a raceway to support another raceway?

300.11(B)(3) says;



> (3) Where the raceway is used to support *boxes or conduit bodies in accordance with 314.23* or to support luminaires in accordance with 410.36(E)


This section permits a raceway to support a *BOX *or *CONDUIT BODY* in accordance with 314.23. 

Chris


----------



## NolaTigaBait (Oct 19, 2008)

Raider1, you seem to be perturbed by this.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

NolaTigaBait said:


> Raider1, you seem to be perturbed by this.


Nah, I really don't care. 

As others have said it is not a really big deal but it is a technical code violation.

I just want to see Waco admit that his is being a hack when he installs it that way.:devil2:

Chris


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

raider1 said:


> Nah, I really don't care.
> 
> As others have said it is not a really big deal but it is a technical code violation.
> 
> ...


wishful thinking


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

wildleg said:


> wishful thinking


Yah, I know.

Chris


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

waco said:


> As for Roger, I wonder what part of "FU" he didn't understand.


I understand most of it, Fl was #1 through most of the season then they faltered and lost to Al in the SEC Championship game, Al then went on to beat Texas for the National Championship. 

That SEC is tough? :thumbup:

How did I do Waco? 


Roger


----------



## wildleg (Apr 12, 2009)

that makes me wonder if Al makes that sound like the waterboy when he gets all worked up ?

oh wait, did you mean Alabama or "Al" ?


----------



## Roger (Jul 7, 2007)

I'm sure Al could have given them all a run for their money. :laughing:

Roger


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

wildleg said:


> that makes me wonder if Al makes that sound like the waterboy when he gets all worked up ?
> 
> oh wait, did you mean Alabama or "Al" ?


 Did Peter install that service?


----------



## JohnJ0906 (Jan 22, 2007)

wildleg said:


>





william1978 said:


> Did Peter install that service?


No. Someone made Al angry. That's what happens when Al gets angry.


----------



## william1978 (Sep 21, 2008)

JohnJ0906 said:


> No. Someone made Al angry. That's what happens when Al gets angry.


 He looks pretty laid back in the photo.:jester:


----------



## Old Spark (Nov 18, 2008)

Good Call Wild!
Wire ties used to support conduit? What's wrong with the correct size straps or even mineralac straps. 
Not wire ties.


----------



## Old Spark (Nov 18, 2008)

He better get those risers back up and get some bigger wire ties to keep them up.


----------



## waco (Dec 10, 2007)

NolaTigaBait said:


> Raider1, you seem to be perturbed by this.


Seems some folks see MC as a raceway. I don't.


----------

