ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Hello... again!
by gfretwell - 07/13/24 08:22 PM
2023 CEU Course
by renosteinke - 07/12/24 03:26 PM
Counterfeit Code Books?
by Comprehensiveedu - 07/12/24 12:16 PM
Old low volt E10 sockets - supplier or alternative
by gfretwell - 07/11/24 08:51 PM
1&2 family services
by gfretwell - 07/11/24 08:33 PM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 215 guests, and 27 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 2,749
Member
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."


Joe Tedesco, NEC Consultant
Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,148
R
Member
Only the AHJ knows!


Don(resqcapt19)
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 697
D
Member
I think where it might get hit with a snowplow would qualify.

Dave

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,438
Member
Is corrosion considered "physical damage"?

-Randy

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,527
B
Moderator
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).]

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,716
R
Member
Well here is an example I think is understandable (atleast as much as we have per the NEC)

[Linked Image from click-smilies.de]

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

[Linked Image]

Roger

Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 681
P
Member
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 [Linked Image]

Pierre


Pierre Belarge
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,716
R
Member
Thanks Pierre. [Linked Image] I hope you and the new company are doing well.

How is your better half doing?

Roger

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 558
G
Member
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

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,387
Likes: 7
Member
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


John
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5