# FMC Question.



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

What code section did the inspector give for the rejection?

Pete


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

Pete m. said:


> What code section did the inspector give for the rejection?
> 
> Pete


I mentioned to him that no where in article 348 says that I am not in compliant with NEC regarding my installation and the douche bag failed my foreman regardless and he refused to cite a code section that will prove him right otherwise.


----------



## wingz (Mar 21, 2009)

What fitting did you use for the transition?

I will assume you did not use the FMC as an EGC.


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

wingz said:


> What fitting did you use for the transition?
> 
> I will assume you did not use the FMC as an EGC.


Nope, i ran a dedicated ground from the panel to my disconnect. My guys used a EMT connector with a threaded coupling and added a greenfield connector for the transition, about 40 feet of EMT and then transitioned to FMC (greenfield) in the basement drop ceiling area.


----------



## wingz (Mar 21, 2009)

Giorgio.g said:


> Nope, i ran a dedicated ground from the panel to my disconnect. My guys used a EMT connector with a threaded coupling and added a greenfield connector for the transition, about 40 feet of EMT and then transitioned to FMC (greenfield) in the basement drop ceiling area.


Inspector may have cause to red tag you for this:

348.6 Listing Requirements. FMC and associated fittings
shall be listed

They make transitional fittings listed for many apps and one is probably available for this install.

In short, you may be screwed.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

Giorgio.g said:


> Nope, i ran a dedicated ground from the panel to my disconnect. My guys used a EMT connector with a threaded coupling and added a greenfield connector for the transition, about 40 feet of EMT and then transitioned to FMC (greenfield) in the basement drop ceiling area.










Maybe he wanted a conduit to greenfield connector?

I wouldn't have gone from TW to greenfield and back to TW. To hard to pull.


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

wingz said:


> Inspector may have cause to red tag you for this:
> 
> 348.6 Listing Requirements. FMC and associated fittings
> shall be listed
> ...


Before EMT to flex were even invented many of us in the trade used a connector with a treaded coupling and a greenfield connector, there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

Wirenuting said:


> View attachment 31936
> 
> Maybe he wanted a conduit to greenfield connector?
> 
> I wouldn't have gone from TW to greenfield and back to TW. To hard to pull.


Thats no greenfield connector, thats emt to romex


----------



## wingz (Mar 21, 2009)

Giorgio.g said:


> Before EMT to flex were even invented many of us in the trade used a connector with a treaded coupling and a greenfield connector, there is nothing wrong with that.


Not saying that the install is not common, I have done the same, I said the availability of fittings today may give the inspector cause.

No?


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

This is the exact set up used, all 3 of them are listed material for such application.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

Giorgio.g said:


> I mentioned to him that no where in article 348 says that I am not in compliant with NEC regarding my installation and the douche bag failed my foreman regardless and he refused to site a code section that will prove him right otherwise.


Wingz gave you a code section that the inspector _could_ use (although, IMHO, it would be a stretch due to the verbiage of the section).

Point is the inspector should be required to provide the code section that you have supposedly violated.

I have installed the same set-up you show many times and have never been questioned. Is it possible that the inspector is flagging the install for the degree of bends in the run? It's very easy to exceed 360 using greenfield.

Pete


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

Giorgio.g said:


> Thats no greenfield connector, thats emt to romex


I'm sorry, wrong picture. 










How about this?

http://www.hubbellcatalog.com/raco/raco_datasheet.asp?PN=1482&FAM=RacoFittings&P=8347,7663


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

Wirenuting said:


> I'm sorry, wrong picture.
> 
> 
> View attachment 31940
> ...


Still wrong, thats a NMFC/liquidtight to EMT.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Giorgio.g said:


> This is the exact set up used, all 3 of them are listed material for such application.


The middle picture is not listed for use with a fitting. Check the white book.


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

This is what FMC is for those that are not familiar with it.


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

mcclary's electrical said:


> The middle picture is not listed for use with a fitting. Check the white book.


Reference please to the white book? its a listed threaded coupling by the way, used in many applications in the electrical industry.


----------



## McClary’s Electrical (Feb 21, 2009)

Giorgio.g said:


> Reference please to the white book? its a listed threaded coupling by the way, used in many applications in the electrical industry.


It is a pipe coupling with tapered national pipe threads. Your fitting has straight threads. Not saying I haven't done that, just saying he's right.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

Giorgio.g said:


> Still wrong, thats a NMFC/liquidtight to EMT.


It's what The Raco site kicked out. 

I agree that how you did it is the same way most of us do it. 
btw; I don't use romex were I'm at. I've installed maybe 30' in 30 years, if that.


----------



## bkmichael65 (Mar 25, 2013)

Lack of/improper support of run?


----------



## CopperSlave (Feb 9, 2012)

Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.....If an inspector fails you for something, isn't he *required* to cite the code you are in violation of? If so, I'd leave it alone until he did just that. At least then, you'd know what you are up against to fix it.


----------



## pete87 (Oct 22, 2012)

Maybe a Christmas Gift is in Order ?








Pete


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

pete87 said:


> Maybe a Christmas Gift is in Order ?


Maybe.


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Giorgio.g said:


> This is the exact set up used, all 3 of them are listed material for such application.


Per UL, none of the connectors for raceways or cables are listed for use with couplings.


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Per UL, none of the connectors for raceways or cables are listed for use with couplings.


They are made for that purpose.


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

Giorgio.g said:


> They are made for that purpose.


They are made for connecting 2 pieces of pipe.
They are used for many other things.


----------



## TOOL_5150 (Aug 27, 2007)

Giorgio.g said:


> Still wrong, thats a NMFC/liquidtight to EMT.


no, you are wrong on that one. its EMT Flex Screw In Compression. says so right on the raco page if you dont believe me. that fitting is for transitioning from EMT to FMC.


----------



## Giorgio.g (Mar 31, 2013)

Wirenuting said:


> They are made for connecting 2 pieces of pipe.
> _*They are used for many other things*_.


Agreed


----------



## Wirenuting (Sep 12, 2010)

TOOL_5150 said:


> no, you are wrong on that one. its EMT Flex Screw In Compression. says so right on the raco page if you dont believe me. that fitting is for transitioning from EMT to FMC.


Pssst, it wasn't the answer he wanted to hear.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

You may be called on more than 360° in the run. You have to count the flex


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

mcclary's electrical said:


> It is a pipe coupling with tapered national pipe threads. Your fitting has straight threads. Not saying I haven't done that, just saying he's right.


Electrical couplings do not have tapered threads. They have straight threads. Conduit has tapered threads. 
The connectors, as you have said, have straight threads. The issue is a good grounding path when the straight thread connector is mated with the straight thread coupling.


----------



## Galt (Sep 11, 2013)

Can't you ask him what he wants?


----------



## 360max (Jun 10, 2011)

Giorgio.g said:


> Before EMT to flex were even invented many of us in the trade used a connector with a treaded coupling and a greenfield connector, *there is nothing wrong with that.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

Giorgio.g said:


> Can i use FMC for a ceiling run of 20'(+/-) transitioning from my EMT stub up? because i did just that and the inspector failed me.


Did you change size. If so, you cannot conceal it.
1/2" EMT to 3/8" FMC ?


----------



## Southeast Power (Jan 18, 2009)

mcclary's electrical said:


> It is a pipe coupling with tapered national pipe threads. Your fitting has straight threads. Not saying I haven't done that, just saying he's right.


Uh, I think our pipe is tapered and out couplings are straight. 
Plumbers couplings are tapered. :thumbsup:


----------



## ponyboy (Nov 18, 2012)

jrannis said:


> Uh, I think our pipe is tapered and out couplings are straight. Plumbers couplings are tapered. :thumbsup:


The straight threads on a rigid coupling are nice when you dont have the nipple chuck for the mule.


----------



## Joe Tedesco (Mar 25, 2007)

Giorgio.g said:


> Can i use FMC for a ceiling run of 20'(+/-) transitioning from my EMT stub up? because i did just that and the inspector failed me.


Read this article in the IAEI News for answers. :thumbup1:

http://www.iaei.org/blogpost/890108/149094/Transitioning-Between-Raceways


----------



## CES (Jan 18, 2013)

Wasn't there a requirement even with approved fittings they have to be accessible at any point.


----------



## Awg-Dawg (Jan 23, 2007)

CES said:


> Wasn't there a requirement even with approved fittings they have to be accessible at any point.


 That would apply to angled connectors.

348.42


----------



## Chrisibew440 (Sep 13, 2013)

Wirenuting said:


> View attachment 31936
> 
> Maybe he wanted a conduit to greenfield connector?
> 
> I wouldn't have gone from TW to greenfield and back to TW. To hard to pull.


Yeah we call them "from-to's" these have a gland style connector on one side like a compression fitting and a male threaded throat like a flex connector on the other.


----------

