Rule always said: "358.12 Uses Not Permitted.
EMT shall not be used under the following conditions:
(1) Where, during installation or afterward, it will be subject to severe physical damage."

Only the AHJ knows!

I think where it might get hit with a snowplow would qualify.

Dave

Is corrosion considered "physical damage"?

-Randy

Snowplows and forklifts.

Isn't the time aspect, "...during installation or afterward..." a more recent addition to the rule? Before—always was just implied, I suppose.




[This message has been edited by Bjarney (edited 07-13-2004).]

Well here is an example I think is understandable (atleast as much as we have per the NEC)



On the left I think we have "physical damage"
On the right we are probably looking at closer to "severe physical damage"



Roger

Joe
We have been mulling that over here for a while, and come up with the AHJ decision as well - but that doesn't bode well for some guys who have to deal with the ' ' inspector type.

Very good Roger

Pierre

Thanks Pierre. I hope you and the new company are doing well.

How is your better half doing?

Roger

My guess is,it'd be a common-sense type of thing. If it's in an area with vehicle traffic,EMT's probably a bad idea.

Russell

AS an inspector....I honestly could not differentiate "severe" and "regular" physical damage.

Is 'severe' damage the EMT being flattened to 1/8" thickness? Damage is damage I would have to say. Determining future possibilities for damage has to be a basic common sense move on the EC's part.

Joe; you picked a real good point!!

John

I'll have to fess up and say that if I was in doubt,I'd probably go RMC.

I work in a couple of counties in Roger's state,and have both AHJ's cell no's. I'd also probably call and ask their opinion.

Is that cheating?

Roger
My wife is starting to feel better, it is a slow healing process, but at least it is healing Thanks for asking!!

The new inspection company is moving along, the one thing that I have problems with is the so called 'officials' who want the rules bent for them ...HMMMM I don't think so. Otherwise I am learning a lot each day and hope that the guys are learning a little from me as well.

John
I agree with you, it is sometimes hard to decide what the difference is between severe and just plain physical damage.
Is a half crushed conduit not as bad as one that is mostly crushed?

Pierre

Russel:
NO, that is not cheatin' in my book.

Good old basic common sense helps a lot, but sometimes a few people don't have any!

I'm still scratching my head trying to visualize 'severe' P/D. Guess a macadam roller, 1" EMT, and a reinforced concrete wall may qualify??

John

How about where the damage affects the operation or safety of the Electrical System?

Bill

Pierre:
Best wishes to your wife (I was not aware)
Judgement call type of 'approvals' or rejections are tough on all of us, both AHJ's and EC's.; unfortunately a part of our jobs.

Bumpers, pylons, etc help matters sometimes, relocation or better layout thinking help also.

Bill:

Any 'damage' that affects the electrical system, as crushed, kinked, etc., raceways has to get a 'fail'. Again, I'm still waiting for the official crystal ball; as to the "afterward" part of Joe's topic.

I'll ask the Director Tuseday, if funding is available, but he probably will tell me where to go!!

John

John,

I was offering my idea of how "subject to severe damage" might be defined.

Bill:
OK, I got y'a
Joe may like that!
John