emt conduit
- Thread starter cd
- Start date
- Status
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: emt conduit
Yes 250.118
Yes 250.118
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: emt conduit
Did you look up my code reference?
[ September 22, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: ryan_618 ]
Did you look up my code reference?
[ September 22, 2004, 06:00 PM: Message edited by: ryan_618 ]
electricman2
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Re: emt conduit
250.118(4) to be specific.
250.118(4) to be specific.
scott moran
Member
Re: emt conduit
Yes, EMT can be used at the equipment grounding conductor. I am in the Chicago metro area and we are not allowed to use NM. All we use is EMT for the grounding conductor.
Yes, EMT can be used at the equipment grounding conductor. I am in the Chicago metro area and we are not allowed to use NM. All we use is EMT for the grounding conductor.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: emt conduit
In my opinion, using the raceway as the equipment bonding means is a poor choice and an equipment grounding (bonding) conductor should also be used even with approved metallic raceways methods.
In my opinion, using the raceway as the equipment bonding means is a poor choice and an equipment grounding (bonding) conductor should also be used even with approved metallic raceways methods.
friebel
Senior Member
- Location
- Pennsville, N.J.
Re: emt conduit
I would like to give my reply to the question, "is EMT acceptable as the equipment grounding conductor" and the answer was yes, referring to Section 250.118.
Now, I would like to give my opinion on this subject. Where I worked for many years, we always used the conduit, etc for the equipment grounding conductor. But let me tell you the objections that I have on this subject. Through my experience, many times we would lose the continuity of the grounding conductor, because of the coupling becoming corroded, therefore having a high resistance in ohms, or sometimes the conduit would be broken, therefore, losing your EGC.We changed our policy where I worked. They now always have a EGC pulled inside of the conduit, or emt, etc.
I certainly would hope that all companies would follow this procedure. In fact I feel that this would be a good change for the 2008 NEC.
I would like to give my reply to the question, "is EMT acceptable as the equipment grounding conductor" and the answer was yes, referring to Section 250.118.
Now, I would like to give my opinion on this subject. Where I worked for many years, we always used the conduit, etc for the equipment grounding conductor. But let me tell you the objections that I have on this subject. Through my experience, many times we would lose the continuity of the grounding conductor, because of the coupling becoming corroded, therefore having a high resistance in ohms, or sometimes the conduit would be broken, therefore, losing your EGC.We changed our policy where I worked. They now always have a EGC pulled inside of the conduit, or emt, etc.
I certainly would hope that all companies would follow this procedure. In fact I feel that this would be a good change for the 2008 NEC.
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: emt conduit
I don't think the steel tubing institute is going to let that happen.
electricman2
Senior Member
- Location
- North Carolina
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
Re: emt conduit
Also 358.60 which says the same thing as 250.118(4)
Also 358.60 which says the same thing as 250.118(4)
Re: emt conduit
Remember to not to use the term "conduit" when referring to EMT. By NEC it is tubing & some of the rules in NEC say conduit. When NEC says "conduit", it is not talking about EMT.
I think all agree that a "separate and redundant" equipment grounding conductor is preferred, but like many other things, there are sometimes tradeoffs envolving economy.
There are many cases where the green or bare copper wire, in addition to the metallic raceway system, is definitely the way to do it even if it exceeds Code minimum requirements.
Remember to not to use the term "conduit" when referring to EMT. By NEC it is tubing & some of the rules in NEC say conduit. When NEC says "conduit", it is not talking about EMT.
I think all agree that a "separate and redundant" equipment grounding conductor is preferred, but like many other things, there are sometimes tradeoffs envolving economy.
There are many cases where the green or bare copper wire, in addition to the metallic raceway system, is definitely the way to do it even if it exceeds Code minimum requirements.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: emt conduit
It is interesting that you make the distinction between tubing and conduit. Can you give an example of when the code uses the term conduit, and that section does not apply to EMT or other tubing articles?
It is interesting that you make the distinction between tubing and conduit. Can you give an example of when the code uses the term conduit, and that section does not apply to EMT or other tubing articles?
Re: emt conduit
The 2002 NEC reference that comes to mind is 314.23 on raceway supported enclosures.
For those of us who prefer the format of the 1996 & earlier NEC's, you will notice that 348-9 on EMT bends did not use the term "conduit".
I feel that 358.24 in 2002 NEC has a typo in it.
The 2002 NEC reference that comes to mind is 314.23 on raceway supported enclosures.
For those of us who prefer the format of the 1996 & earlier NEC's, you will notice that 348-9 on EMT bends did not use the term "conduit".
I feel that 358.24 in 2002 NEC has a typo in it.
Re: emt conduit
What relevance would a preferred format of an earlier NEC cycle, layout, or print, have to do with the latter versions wording or changes?
If you notice the 2002 vertical line next to the section, you will see it is a change for this cycle. I know this is probably dealing with the change of the conduit (there's that word again ) bending table from 346-10 to 344.24, but this "typo" (yes I agree) would leave a big gap for a legitimate argument to say EMT is a conduit.
Roger
What relevance would a preferred format of an earlier NEC cycle, layout, or print, have to do with the latter versions wording or changes?
If you notice the 2002 vertical line next to the section, you will see it is a change for this cycle. I know this is probably dealing with the change of the conduit (there's that word again
) bending table from 346-10 to 344.24, but this "typo" (yes I agree) would leave a big gap for a legitimate argument to say EMT is a conduit.Roger
Re: emt conduit
A knowledge of the history of the changes in the NEC frequently offers insight into analyzing rules & the intention of the rules. NEC is not an instruction manual 90.1(C).
All earlier NEC's are relevant. Well-respected publications such as Joe McPartland's series of National Electrical Code Handbooks are relevant. All history of electrical power & light is relevant.
Let's drop the question of whether EMT is conduit. There are other more important things.
A knowledge of the history of the changes in the NEC frequently offers insight into analyzing rules & the intention of the rules. NEC is not an instruction manual 90.1(C).
All earlier NEC's are relevant. Well-respected publications such as Joe McPartland's series of National Electrical Code Handbooks are relevant. All history of electrical power & light is relevant.
Let's drop the question of whether EMT is conduit. There are other more important things.
Re: emt conduit
I never said earlier versions of the NEC aren't relevant did I?
I Asked what relevance a "Preferred Format" played in the evolution of the latter versions of the NEC.
I guess someone with the experience of ancient code cycles (pre 99) would have a vast knowledge to analyzing the changes leading to the NEC we have today huh?
Roger
[ September 26, 2004, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
I never said earlier versions of the NEC aren't relevant did I?
I Asked what relevance a "Preferred Format" played in the evolution of the latter versions of the NEC.
I guess someone with the experience of ancient code cycles (pre 99) would have a vast knowledge to analyzing the changes leading to the NEC we have today huh?
Roger
[ September 26, 2004, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: emt conduit
That wasn't the original question. I am still wondering where in the code there are provisions for conduit that do not apply to tubing? Most sections use the terms together "conduit and tubing", but I can't seem to find requirements for one specific. I'm not saying its not there, I just wish to be educated on the matter.
- Status