ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Anybody comment on materials pricing?
by gfretwell - 06/10/21 01:33 PM
2 pole GFI feeding 1 and 2 pole loads
by gfretwell - 06/04/21 02:27 AM
Lock-down Thread
by HotLine1 - 06/01/21 08:15 AM
Updated Forum Software
by Admin - 05/31/21 12:09 AM
Square D "All-In-One" Panelboard
by HotLine1 - 05/29/21 12:13 PM
New in the Gallery:
2020 - 2021 Winter Project
2020 - 2021 Winter Project
by Bill Addiss, April 29
Garden 2021
Garden 2021
by Bill Addiss, April 26
Who's Online Now
1 members (Scott35), 49 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#94837 08/15/05 07:26 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,507
G
Member
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
2017 / 2014 NEC & Related Books and Study Guides
#94838 08/15/05 07:55 PM
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 375
G
Member
I would suggest protection is necessary.

#94839 08/15/05 08:13 PM
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 680
W
Member
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.

#94840 08/15/05 08:28 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 315
L
Member
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 ?

#94841 08/15/05 09:30 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,643
G
Member
"Physical damage/protection" always seems to be a local decision.
"Subject to physical damage" is always a subjective question. [Linked Image]


Greg Fretwell
#94842 08/15/05 09:31 PM
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,876
E
e57 Offline
Member
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
#94843 08/16/05 12:53 PM
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 399
A
Member
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.
#94844 08/23/05 08:57 AM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 29
M
Member
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.

#94845 08/23/05 12:21 PM
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 625
S
Member
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." [Linked Image]

#94846 09/02/05 06:48 PM
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 5
T
New Member
What is the difference with NM cable installed in bored holes within the floor joist in an exposed basement ceiling.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Featured:

Tools for Electricians
Tools for Electricians
 

* * * * * * *

2020 Master Electrician Exam Preparation Combos
2020 NEC Electrician
Exam Prep Combos:
Master / Journeyman

 

Member Spotlight
MarkC10
MarkC10
CA, Inland Empire
Posts: 43
Joined: September 2013
Top Posters(30 Days)
Admin 11
Trumpy 10
Popular Topics(Views)
280,311 Are you busy
213,398 Re: Forum
200,335 Need opinion
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5