Originally Posted By: Michael D Thomas This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Rehab of 2 flat frame apartment building, all electric is in EMT.
The electricians were using a LOT more couplings than I?m used to seeing, often for example between every joist when running perpendicular to the joist direction and sometimes pretty close together for their convenience ? at first glance anywhere the whole effect is pretty ?Weekend Warrior?.
My concern is two-fold: the additional friction of pulling runs past multiple couplings, and the increased possibility that some may not be properly deburred.
OTOH most of the runs with eight or ten couplings are straight, the electricians (who were using combination reamers and hex drivers in cordless drills) seemed to be pretty conscientious about their work, and this technique does have the advantage of allowing them to quickly place the EMT in locations where multiple bends would be pretty tricky.
So maybe I?m just used to ?old school? electricians who were artists with a conduit bender and found ways to thread long runs almost everywhere, and this the wave of the future? Comments?
Originally Posted By: Greg Fretwell This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Jae put his finger on it. Running longer sections would be almost impossible. If everything was properly deburred I can’t see a problem. It actually looks pretty good.
You can tell this is Chicago. No place else on the planet would have this wiring method. If I really had a hard on for metal I would be using MC cable on this job.
Originally Posted By: mcyr This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I agree with Greg, that if whoever wanted EMT, will have to pay dearly and live with all these couplings, because it is only 14 and 1/2 inches between the joist. What was the problem with EMC? to economical and to much common sense? Why not ROMEX? it is allowed up to three stories, unless this photo is of a place of assembly.
Since this job was done in EMT, I would not go as far as trying to assume the coupled joints were deburred or not. That is an assumption and it is expected that if done by professionals it has been done. To assume that these joints were not deburred, is telling me that you did not teach your apprentice the right way or you forgot to do it yourself.
Will the real deburrer please stand up. ha. ha. I am joking.
In today’s world, young workers like to skip a few steps if it looks monotonous.
Originally Posted By: mcyr This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
HI. Jae, Kids today, will do what you tell them in a kind of categorized fashion, dose that mean that if they feel up to it, they might come around and do right, or will that admit to the fact in their eyes that they gave in and actually did what was right?
Originally Posted By: Michael D Thomas This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
> What was the problem with EMC?
No problem, it's required for residential in Evanston, IL - where this job is located - and some other places around here. Actually it's often possible to get much longer runs of EMT in there if you drill 1-1/2" holes, these guys are using three or four times the number of couplings I?m used to seeing for this sort of job, so it just looks sorta' odd to me.
Originally Posted By: mcyr This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I would not advise an Electrician to drill 1 1/2" holes for his conduits unless monitored for proper locations and the 1/3 Law that he does not know of.
Originally Posted By: Thomas Ogryski This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Those couplings are die cast zinc and can be purchased in quantity for about 10? each. A band saw makes quick work of all the cuts. IMO, nice looking job. I did a few EMT in wood framing jobs when I waas an apprentice & they are definitely tough to do.
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
mcyr wrote:
 I would not advise an Electrician to drill 1 1/2" holes for his conduits unless monitored for proper locations and the 1/3 Law that he does not know of.
Marcel
Marcel:
Very true, I had an electrician do a rough and he drilled all of the joists right through the middle of each one with for his SER feeders!
The building inspector made him remove them, and the builder had to double up the joists.
Originally Posted By: jtedesco This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
jwortham wrote:
EMC is required in Evanston?
Or is it EMT? Now I am confused!
EMT "Thinwall"
Conduit, tubing, cables, cords, raceways
Quote:
Table Page
C.1 -- Electrical Metallic Tubing (EMT) 658
C.1(A)* -- Electrical Metallic Tubing (EMT) 662
C.2 -- Electrical Nonmetallic Tubing (ENT) 663
C.2(A)* -- Electrical Nonmetallic Tubing (ENT) 667
C.3 -- Flexible Metal Conduit (FMC) 668
C.3(A)* -- Flexible Metal Conduit (FMC) 672
C.4 -- Intermediate Metal Conduit (IMC) 673
C.4(A)* -- Intermediate Metal Conduit (IMC) 677
C.5 -- Liquidtight Flexible Nonmetallic Conduit (Type LFNC-B) 678
C.5(A)* -- Liquidtight Flexible Nonmetallic Conduit (Type LFNC-B) 682
C.6 -- Liquidtight Flexible Nonmetallic Conduit (Type LFNC-A) 683
C.6(A)* -- Liquidtight Flexible Nonmetallic Conduit (Type LFNC-A) 687
C.7 -- Liquidtight Flexible Metal Conduit (LFMC) 688
C.7(A)* -- Liquidtight Flexible Metal Conduit (LFMC) 692
C.8 -- Rigid Metal Conduit (RMC) 693
C.8(A)* -- Rigid Metal Conduit (RMC) 697
C.9 -- Rigid PVC Conduit, Schedule 80 698
C.9(A)* -- Rigid PVC Conduit, Schedule 80 702
C.10 -- Rigid PVC Conduit, Schedule 40 and HDPE Conduit 703
C.10(A)* -- Rigid PVC Conduit, Schedule 40 and HDPE Conduit 707
C.11 -- Type A, Rigid PVC Conduit 708
C.11(A)* -- Type A, Rigid PVC Conduit 712
C.12 -- Type EB, PVC Conduit 713
C.12(A)* -- Type EB, PVC Conduit 716
*Where this table is used in conjunction with Tables C.1 through C.12, the conductors installed must be of the compact type.
The Annex C conduit and tubing conductor fill tables are provided only as an informational tool and are not part of the mandatory requirements of the Code. The conductor fill values specified in the Annex C tables have been calculated based on the conductor fill requirements, conduit and tubing dimensions, and conductor dimensions from Chapter 9, Tables 1, 4, 5, and 5A. As such, where the conductors in conduit or tubing are all of the same physical size and insulation characteristic, the use of the Annex C tables to determine the maximum number of conductors ensures compliance with the Code requirements for raceway fill found in 300.17 and the respective conduit and tubing articles. For that reason, NEC users rely on the widely used and referred-to tables in Annex C as though they were part of the mandatory requirements of the Code. Although the values for maximum conduit or tubing fill do not exceed that permitted by Chapter 9, Table 1, the advice provided in FPN No.1 to Table 1 on considering a lesser conductor fill or a larger size conduit to that table should always be taken into consideration where the wire-pulling conditions are not optimum.
The Annex C tables came about because of the different internal dimensions of the many types of conduit and tubing. Table 3A, Table 3B, and Table 3C in previous editions of the Code were generic in nature and did not distinguish among the different conduit and tubing types. Although more comprehensive than the approach taken in past editions of the Code, the Annex C tables provide a far more precise approach to conductor fill tables.
As in past editions of the Code, Chapter 9, Table 1, sets forth the percentage fill required, and Table 4, Table 5, and Table 5A list the accurate conduit, tubing, and wire dimensions. Users can calculate the percent fill, as permitted in past editions of the Code or use the tables in Annex C, all of which were generated using Chapter 9, Table 1, Table 4, Table 5, and Table 5A.
The 12 sets of tables in Annex C correspond to the 12 conduit and tubing wiring methods in Chapter 3 of the Code. Each set of tables is subdivided into three conductor categories: (1) conductors for general wiring (Article 310), which appear in an order similar to Chapter 9, Table 3A, Table 3B, and Table 3C of the NEC prior to the 1996 edition; (2) fixture wires (Article 402), in an order similar to the pre-1996 edition Chapter 9, Table 2; and (3) compact stranded conductors (Article 310), in an order similar to the pre-1996 edition Chapter 9, Table 5A. In Annex C, tables that use compact stranding are listed as ``A'' tables.
To select the correct metric designator or trade size conduit or tubing, proceed as follows:
STEP 1.
Select the appropriate wiring method from Tables C.1 through C.12 using the lists of metallic and nonmetallic wiring methods given in Commentary Table C.1 and Commentary Table C.2.
Commentary Table C.1 Metallic Wiring Methods
Type of Wiring Appropriate Table
Electrical metallic tubing Table C.1
Flexible metal conduit Table C.3
Intermediate metal conduit Table C.4
Liquidtight flexible metal conduit Table C.7
Rigid metal conduit Table C.8
Commentary Table C.2 Nonmetallic Wiring Methods
Type of Wiring Appropriate Table
Electrical nonmetallic tubing Table C.2
Liquidtight flexible nonmetallic conduit (LFNC-B) Table C.5
Liquidtight flexible nonmetallic conduit (LFNC-A) Table C.6
Rigid PVC conduit, Schedule 80 Table C.9
Rigid PVC conduit, Schedule 40 and HDPE conduit Table C.10
Type A, rigid PVC conduit Table C.11
Type EB, PVC conduit Table C.12
.... every joist on that floor, front to back- and all the plumbng electrical is allready in there...
I'm meeting the general, the piping contractor and the structural inspector at the job tomorrow - I don' think the piping guy is gonna' like what he hears.
Originally Posted By: Michael D Thomas This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
> Very true, I had an electrician do a rough and he drilled all of the
> joists right through the middle of each one with for his SER feeders!
> The building inspector made him remove them, and the builder had to
> double up the joists.
I?m assuming that this was a placement issue, not a mid-span problem... AFAIK the mid-span prohibition is a notching, not a boring, limitation, and as long as it meets the 2? off and max 1/3 depth rules a hole is OK in the mid-third.
BTW, I'm surprised that no one has asked how the sprinkler crew got those runs in without couplings (like the electricians).
