This pic illustrates the difference between "code" and "reality."

While the NEC has specifications for support, and makes statements such as "suitable for" and "subject to," one cannot apply them without returning to a site and reviewing the original juggement calls that were made.

The tenant of this industrial site had mounted boxes and pipe on the wall. I interpret the shabby condition of both as proof that his installeation did NOT meet the code requirements; a few extra supports and better anchors might have made all the difference here!



OR- do we blame the sheetrock guy?

I don't see any supports at all so it was not a code compliant for that fact.

I don't think that EMT mounted properly on a typical Sheetrock wall is 'subject to physical damage'

Perhaps they should have run cord so it would flex out of the way.

IMO this installtion



is subject to physical damage as it sticks out from the building right at a corner.

The point I am trying to make is one persons idea of safe from damage is not the same as the next persons idea.

Hindsight is 20 20.

It is hard to tell about the EMT, as we do not know just what the prior tenant used the area for. But, it would appear that the boxes, oand pipes, were knocked free somehow. It is also possible that the guy fixing the drywall (another hint that things got rough there) removed any supports, and pried the box loose.

Perhaps this pic is a better example of 'after the instal' damage:




That's the point I'm trying to make: only after the fact do we know for sure if our "design choices" were correct.

[This message has been edited by renosteinke (edited 10-08-2006).]

IMO, that pole barn the pvc is run on is also subject to physical damage...but if that pant is a muni operation there are no inspections and therefore no opinions

...it was never mentioned if sch 80 was spec'd or just selected on site
I thought reno said it was "chosen" I need to reread that thread

if spec , they get exactly what they pay for

Gotta love ECN! I post a pic, trying to (pick the example) either show off a nice bend, or underscore the need to go beyond simply selecting a method, and actually consider actual conditions.... and we're back to examining the instal of a plastic LB.

I believe that I had explainde that the distance away from the wall was made necessary by the 90 degree bend on the opposite side of the wall. Cut the pipe sooner, and the LB would be at a funky angle; bend it tighter, and you've violated required bend radius. Put an LB on the inside, and it will be enclosed in the wall, and inaccessible.
In any event, there is less than two inches of air under that LB. Not visible in the pic are either the curb, or the roof overhang, that discourage passing THAT close to the building.
Not a work of art? Never said it was. I make no claims as to my work being perfect. Indeed, that my work is so much better than some is a thought that terrifies me some days....

I had a blank check on thet job, as far as design was concerned. PVC was chosen for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with either price, or ease of install. While I did everything I could to run the pipe in a manner in which it would not be subject to damage, or tripping over, etc... still, it was exposed- so I chose sched 80.

Now, for those not familiar with sewage at all, it may surprise you to know that the stuff itself can be tough on materials. Not to mention that some of the chemicals used are themselves pretty nasty. This is one application for which PVC is a good first choice- even specialty metals often fall short in these applications.

Now, getting back on topic...

I submit that damage is evidence that the original wiring method failed to meet the code requirements for protecting the wires. I don't care that the stuff was crunchedby a tank; what matters when you find this is that you take steps to prevent this damage from happening again. It's not enough to just replace with more of the same.

Looking at the two pics I submitted... it's not a matter of "might be," it's a case of "was." In both cases, the use of ANY exposed wiring method might be questioned, as the stuff got hit. Since the walls themselves look to be in pretty good condition, perhaps, in this case, Romex fished to cut-in boxes would be a "superior" method to running pipe.

Of course, we only know this with hindsight. Isn't that a large part of a 'service' call- looking at what didn't work, and fixing it?

Back to the first pic of the EMT installation, I see no offsets to bring the EMT snug to the wall and I see no strapping at all. Using the proper anchors and strapping (within 12" of each junction/box fitting), you could construct this exact installation and be able to virtually stand on it without breaking it off the wall, unless the drywall gave out first. Over strapping and extra anchors is perfectly legal, BTW.

(I may be exaxerating with the "standing" on it comment, but you see my point...)

Reno:
In the EMT pic:
Was it inspected and passed?
Is EMT offset at ea box? Can't tell from pics
Straps?? I see no holes/anchors?

That said/asked, IF the install was compliant WHEN I did an inspection, it would pass. I cannot forsee even into 5 min after I leave the site.

John

PS: Reading the explanation to the PVC, I have to agree with you, no problem with it.

HotLine, there were no offsets. And, I do have to allow for the possibility that the anchores were removed in order to repair the drywall.

I have no quarrel with the inspector- though it is very likely none of the jobs pictured here were ever permitted, or inspected.

Nor do I expect the inspector to be able to see into the future. THAT is the electricians' job. He's the guy who talks to the customer, evaluates the application, and chooses the wiring method.

Code is not about design; an electricians' job is, though. That's why I posted this under "discussion," rather then "violations."

It's just not enought to "meet code." Not- and still call yourself a professional.

Reno:
Yes, again I agree with you 100%.
'Code' & proper design are two different animals.

And, this is another reason for permits & inspections.

John

John (reno) I am not trying to bust your chops about the plastic LB.

My only point in posting that picture in this thread was to illustrate that each of us has different ideas about this trade.

It strikes me that you feel you have some sort of 'special' ability to judge what is a professional installation and what is not....you don't, your just an electrician like the rest of us.

IMHO, PVC exposed is not ever a great choice. In your opinion EMT exposed on an sheet rock wall is not professional.

The truth is either can be good or bad.

To look at a damaged raceway on a wall and say it is the result of unprofessional installation is pure BS.

We have no idea what the use of that space was when the raceway was installed.

For all we know that wall may be a fire wall and installing old works would be a violation of building codes resulting in an unsafe and very unprofessional installation.

Bob

Iwire, I appreciate your input.... but I believe I have been mis-understood.

I put things in "discussion" for.... well, discussion. That's also why I often have thread titles with question marks.

Please do not read anything more into this. If I post "Subject to damage?", I am asking the quwetion- not saying "Aha! Caught you!"

We all, as part of out work, make design choices. Even with the best intent, we sometimes guess wrong. We won't know that until after the fact.

Surface mount pipe is an example. I actually like this arrangement. In general, I prefer it to most other methods.

Yet, if I visit an existing situation, and see a section of pipe that has been ripped off the wall, I have to ask "Why?" Simply putting it back on the wall is probably just gong to make sure it gets ripped out again.

I consider such damage to be proof that the original choices were incorrect. Perhaps another method, or another pipe routing, can prevent the damage from happening all over again.

You might even apply this principle to receptacle and light placement. The use of extension cords and table lamps just might be an indicator that some of the early desing decisions could have been improved upon.

You're quite right; I am just another sparky. It does not bother me that there are better sparkies out there; that there are worse terrifies me!
Part of 'learning' is recognising that the process never stops. One of the things we can do is re-visit existing jobs, and see how the original choices performed.

It's not just about passing inspection. Nor is it about following the prints. Rather, it's about making the installation serve the customer- not the other way around.