The Electrical Contractor Network

ECN Electrical Forum
Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals

Books, Tools and Test Equipment for Electrical and Construction Trades

Register Now!

Register Now!

We want your input!

Featured:
   

2017 NEC and Related
2017 NEC
Now Available!

   
Recent Posts
Sprinklered equipment 26-008
by bigpapa
12/02/16 04:24 PM
On Delay Relay with Auto Reset
by Potseal
12/01/16 09:59 AM
Wow, that was close!
by jraef
11/28/16 07:06 PM
Earthquake in New Zeeland
by RODALCO
11/27/16 11:25 PM
Calling all Non-US members!! (Non-US only)
by Tjia1981
11/27/16 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
12.5A through 0.75mm˛ flex (just out of curiosity)
Shout Box

Top Posters (30 Days)
gfretwell 14
HotLine1 10
Texas_Ranger 8
Trumpy 8
sparkyinak 7
Who's Online
1 registered (geoff in UK), 202 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#94837 - 08/15/05 04:26 PM Physical protection
George Little Offline
Member

Registered: 01/18/04
Posts: 1492
Loc: Michigan USA
We have an inspector in our area who wrote a violation quoting 334.15(B). The installation involved installing NM cable horizontally through the studs in an unfinished garage. The inspector wanted the wiring to go up and over instead of around the garage at about 3 feet above the floor. What is the opinion of this forum?

I told him to count his belssings because I didn't think plastic NM cable boxes were Listed for use in exposed wiring. Seems like this came up a few years ago at an IAEI code panel and a UL guy made a point of this.
_________________________
George Little

Top
2014 / 2011 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#94838 - 08/15/05 04:55 PM Re: Physical protection
George Offline
Member

Registered: 02/23/02
Posts: 380
I would suggest protection is necessary.

Top
#94839 - 08/15/05 05:13 PM Re: Physical protection
walrus Offline
Member

Registered: 07/25/02
Posts: 671
Loc: Bangor Me. USA
If he ran the NM up and over and then down would he need protection for the portion that came down??. The original description would pass in Maine without a doubt.

Top
#94840 - 08/15/05 05:28 PM Re: Physical protection
luckyshadow Offline
Member

Registered: 01/04/05
Posts: 305
Loc: Maryland USA
Go into my garage and you will see romex running through the wall studs at about 3' off the floor. Inspector had no problem with it. Is this a local "code" thing or is the inspector pushing his own ideas on you ?

Top
#94841 - 08/15/05 06:30 PM Re: Physical protection
gfretwell Offline

Member

Registered: 07/20/04
Posts: 9045
Loc: Estero,Fl,usa
"Physical damage/protection" always seems to be a local decision.
"Subject to physical damage" is always a subjective question.
_________________________
Greg Fretwell

Top
#94842 - 08/15/05 06:31 PM Re: Physical protection
e57 Offline
Member

Registered: 05/27/03
Posts: 2837
Loc: S.F.,CA USA
Around here NM and MC for that matter, is subject to damage <8'AFF. In fact we do alot of corrections on exactly that type of work. It's obvious of the hazard when you walk in to do the work, and find all kinds of things hanging on it. Like crowbars, boxes stuffed into the stud-bays, and once, a kayack tied to it. Even above 8', we pipe it unless it is planned to be rocked.

As far as Code goes, "protected from physical damage where necessary", is pretty subjective, and lends alot to the AHJ.

As for the boxes, as you mention,
 Quote:
314.17 (C) Nonmetallic Boxes and Conduit Bodies.
Nonmetallic boxes and conduit bodies shall be suitable for the lowest temperature-rated conductor entering the box. Where nonmetallic boxes and conduit bodies are used with open wiring or concealed knob-and-tube wiring, the conductors shall enter the box through individual holes. Where flexible tubing is used to enclose the conductors, the tubing shall extend from the last insulating support to not less than 6 mm (1/4 in.) inside the box and beyond any cable clamp. Where nonmetallic-sheathed cable or multiconductor Type UF cable is used, the sheath shall extend not less than 6 mm (1/4 in.) inside the box and beyond any cable clamp. In all instances, all permitted wiring methods shall be secured to the boxes.
Sounds like the boxes need clamps for NM....
_________________________
Mark Heller
"Well - I oughta....." -Jackie Gleason

Top
#94843 - 08/16/05 09:53 AM Re: Physical protection
Alan Nadon Offline
Member

Registered: 03/10/05
Posts: 398
Loc: Elkhart, IN. USA
You forgot to read the exception that followed the rule. "...where the cable is fastened within 8 inches..."
An AHJ could argue that the box is not IN a wall but it would be a weak case.
Alan--Inspector
I would approve the installation.

Cheap, quick fix: nail scrap lumber, insulation board, particle board, etc. around the wall to cover the NM.
_________________________
Alan--
If it was easy, anyone could do it.

Top
#94844 - 08/23/05 05:57 AM Re: Physical protection
Mvannevel Offline
Member

Registered: 03/19/03
Posts: 29
Loc: Hesperia, Michigan, USA
I'm not sure where your area is at George (I believe you're in Michigan too), but it's come up in mine as well. I personally have always allowed it and will continue to do so. 334 permits NM for exposed and concealed work. I doubt that where run through bored holes around the perimiter of a garage, it's any more subject to physical damage than it is where it's run through bored holes in floor joists in a basement. How many times have you seen the lady of the house use those cables to store clothes from on hangers? In fact, if you think about it, it's probably more likely to be damaged where it's stapled down the side of a stud. As stated earlier, "subject to physical damage" is a rather subjective phrase.

Top
#94845 - 08/23/05 09:21 AM Re: Physical protection
SolarPowered Offline
Member

Registered: 07/05/04
Posts: 615
Loc: Palo Alto, CA, USA
 Quote:
... and find all kinds of things hanging on it. Like crowbars, boxes stuffed into the stud-bays, and once, a kayack tied to it.


 Quote:
How many times have you seen the lady of the house use those cables to store clothes from on hangers?


I don't think I'd call that, "Subject to physical damage." I'd call it, "Failure of foolproofing, due to development of a better fool."

Top
#94846 - 09/02/05 03:48 PM Re: Physical protection
tom25 Offline
New Member

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 6
Loc: Michigan
What is the difference with NM cable installed in bored holes within the floor joist in an exposed basement ceiling.

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



ECN Electrical Forums - sponsored by Electrical Contractor Network - Electrical and Code Related Discussion for Electrical Contractors, Electricians, Inspectors, Instructors, Engineers and other related Professionals