Help with hooking up welding circuit bx vs emt

[Tim Fitzgerald]

Im hooking up a hobart handler 190. Bought 10-2 romex, and planned to pull it through 3/4 emt. I didnt realize that i had to buy a seperate bender just for 3/4, I have 1/2". Well then at lowes I passed by some armored flex and am thinking it would be simpler just to run that instead, no bending, joining ets...

Issue is I dont know if it would meet code...? The length of run is 63 feet. height coming out of panel about 8 foot. I would then run it along trusses (9 foot) then down to outlet which would be about 4 foot. Additionally if someone could post a pick of an exposed circuit to include outlet, that would give me some ideas....

 

[PoorOwner]

It is ok for the armored just looks ugly not being straight,
but you could have just used 1/2 EMT that you have the bender for, since you just bought the romex, return it and get 3 individual THHN..

 

[LXCam]

You're fine with armored. The only code requirement would be strapping. You could always run 1/2" emt and pull in #10's, but definitely not the romex you have that'll never fit.

 

[alfredeneuman]

The Code requirement for both types AC (bx) and MC cable is the same as NM (Romex) with regards to physical damage. All 3 need to be protected against physical damage.

If you wouldn't run NM you can't use AC or MC.
(There's no such restriction with flexible metal conduit though)

 

[LXCam]

When did the code requirements change for type MC? Not trying to be a smart ***, it's a legit question.

 

[LXCam]

If you wouldn't run NM you can't use AC or MC.
(There's no such restriction with flexible metal conduit though)

So I found the language and would consider it another ******** open ended interpretation to the AHJ's call. Since type MC is considered equal to type EMT in its physical protection qualities my interpretation would be that it needs to be protected when installed in severe duty environment, meaning normally rigid would be required. Other than the fact that when installed in framing members and within less then 1.25" from the surface of the framing member needs to be protected, another words nail plates which I would not disagree with.

But if it were my call for this application i would allow it to be run exposed. But obviously I'm not your AHJ so if this is a inspected project I'd talk to your inspector first about it.

 

[sberry]

You may not need conduit or not all the way. A 10/30 is ideal for that welder but you can use up to 50 for a buzzer if needed.

 

[alfredeneuman]

Since type MC is considered equal to type EMT in its physical protection qualities.

Says who?? Not The NEC or the IEC.
You can interpret it any way you wish, but it's wrong.

 

[Norcal]

.......................................Since type MC is considered equal to type EMT in its physical protection qualities ...........................................................

Your incorrect, article 330.12(1) states that MC cable shall not be used where subject to physical damage, article 320.12 (1) says the same thing for AC cable.

Article 358.12 says EMT shall not be used where subject to severe physical damage.


All articles are from the 2014 NEC.

 

[LXCam]

Take a look at 330.10 where it states type MC is considered a raceway. No argument about he language but there is also a compelling discussion within ECM some time back that discusses the attributes of type MC and compares it to emt. I'm not going to argue with you guys. I do know that if where installed on my project exposed and not subject to physical damage I might allow it. It's completely a subjective call in the AHJ's part, it is not cut and dry.

 

[PoorOwner]

That's odd. The local shed outfit would put the armored cable if you want the electrical package. Exposed on joists and studs where most people won't cover up.

 

[alfredeneuman]

Take a look at 330.10 where it states type MC is considered a raceway.

330.10 says that MC can be installed in a raceway, not that is a raceway

 

[Tim Fitzgerald]

So can I use the armorlite for my circuit or not

 

[LXCam]

330.10 says that MC can be installed in a raceway, not that is a raceway

This is exactly what I mean by "an open interpretation". Those are your words added to what is a single term "raceway". I could just as easily add a description stating that it's considered a raceway for the following conditions .7, .9, .10 & .11

 

[Norcal]

Metal Clad cable is a cable assembly, not a raceway.

 

[Dragfluid]

OP, ignore the electrical purse fight going on and return the Romex, buy some 1/2" EMT, fittings, and enough 10 ga to do the job, and get on with life. It will be cost effective, safe, and look nice.
It will give you the opportunity to have a little more practice with your bender.

These guys will fill 10 pages arguing about who's right, and you still won't have an answer.

 

[alfredeneuman]

Here is the only place in 330.10, or the whole text of 330 the term "raceway" is used.
These aren't my words but a direct quote from the 2011 NEC. It's pretty cut and dried as to it's intent. The words aren't ambiguous at all and leave no room for interpretation.

II. Installation
330.10 Uses Permitted.
(A) General Uses. Type MC cable shall be permitted as
follows:
(7) In any raceway

OP. Sorry about the ruckus and lack of a consensus. I'd suggest you contact your local Building Department for an answer to your Question.