Photos and info submitted by Shockme77:

Doesn't look like the builder cared enough to option out the place with a structured wiring system cabinet. Also doesn't look like enough branch circuits.

I think I would have used some of the KO's in the TJIs to run my home runs through.

Your AHJ lets you bundle that many Romex together for long runs without derating?

Violation.
Check Section 334.15(C)
Otherwise it would pass inspection.
Alan--
One solution would be to drop the wires, install 1X2 or other running boards, and put the wires back up. You should check with the manufacturer of the T joist since they do not like to have things nailed or screwed to the bottom edge.
A--

[This message has been edited by Alan Nadon (edited 11-12-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Alan Nadon (edited 11-12-2006).]

It's only a bundle if you fail to "maintain spacing." The plastic trees he used to support the romex do maintain spacing between the wires. Indeed, it looks like he exceeded code requirements for support.

Since he's using proper hangers, I'm not sure what the use of running boards would accomplish; there does not appear to be any significant 'droop' to the cables. Perhaps this will need to be addressed in the next code cycle?

The KO's in the joists NEVE line up. Nor would using them for support -in lieu of runing boards- support the cables any better than they already are supported.

Awfully nice that the gutter crew saw fit to go around the service drop; usuallym they try to pry it out from the wall!


The only 'nit' I see to pick at is the lack of working space in front of one of the air conditioner disconnects.

Where is the outlet for the air conditioning condensors?

Do you have a ground rod under the meter?

Does the central steel beam need to be bonded?

Larry C

No bundling derating issue to even consider if there are less than 9 current carrying conductors in either of those bundles if indeed the AHJ feels they are bundles.

(Mine would)

I installed a 125 AMP sub panel in the 2nd floor laundry room. It feeds 5 bedrooms, 1 future bedroom, 2 full baths, master bathroom jacuzzi (20 amp), 2 furnaces, and all 2nd floor and attic lighting. It is full at 20 full size breakers but has the capacity for 40 twins.


That's what I did originally. The boss didn't like it that way and had me change it to how it is now.


Fortuneatly, I got to do the service before the gutters were installed.


The 210.63 requirement is within 25' of the equipment but can't be seen in the picture. It's there though.

No ground rod is needed. The Ufer was available and was used. The copper water pipes are bonded by #4 cu and the water heater is jumped out from hot to cold.


The AHJ had no issues with bundling. He asked me a question about article 250.148 during the rough inspection and was impressed that I knew what he was talking about.

Not sure when the final inspection will be though.

Shock, and all,
NEC 334.15(C) In Unfinished Basements. Where cable is run at angles with joist in ubfinished basements , ...2 #6 or 3 #8 directly to lower edge....
Smaller cables SHALL be run either through bored holes in joist or on running boards.
Below the joist NM cable is a violation.
It isn't just support but, protection. People used to use the wires as clothes line and hang wet clothes from wire hangers from the conductors. A real treat when they had K&T wiring.
Alan--

Alan, I interpret article 334.15(C) the same way you do. In fact, that is how I originally installed the cables, on a running board until I was told by the builder AND my boss to do it the way you see it is now. Most inspectors around here are ok with this install as long as it can be boxed-out later if a sheetrock ceiling is installed instead of a suspended ceiling.

Alan,

I agree with your interpretation of that section, but really wonder how effective it is. After all you could still hang the hangers between the joists and damage the wires.

That is really nice work! Me likeeeee!

With respect to the bundling and derating, I gotta rant a little here. How many fires have actually been caused as a result of improper or non-existent derating?

I fully understand the heat issuese, but let's face it, I would rather see an installation like this, than a rats nest all over the place. Chances are if wiring is sloppy, it is more likely to be dangerous too. With outstanding workmanship like this you know the rest of the job is as good as gold, rendering any negative effects from the lack of derating almost non-existent.

Derating could also apply in those nice neat bundles we make inside panels too. But I still think those nice neat bundles beat wiring all over the place anyday.

Also, we don't know if derating WASN'T taken into account... how do we know those cables weren't upsized?

Anyway, enough of the sideshow... nice work!

Joe

Shock,
I'm glad you read the Code .
Maybe you should buy one for the local inspector or your boss.
NM cable under the floor joist is not an interpretation, of Code but the wording of the code.
When I see it, it usually means DIY work and the installer didn't know the Code or own a drill.
Alan--

Alan, I agree about the NM routing, but even through the joists, the NM can still be used as clothes hangers.

Running boards are the best option.

Perhaps the basement will be finsihed, and this is only part of the rough inspection? Drop celing to be installed?

Joe

Thanks for the kind words, Joe. It was taught to me when I first started out in this trade to do the work neatly. This way the inspector will see nice, neat work and won't have to look too hard for a violation because the workmanship is there. It made sense then, and it makes sense now. I stress this when teaching helpers on the job now too.

Alan, I worked for a contractor last year that fired me for drilling holes for all the homeruns in a basement the way the code suggests. He couldn't figure out what was taking me so long to complete the job and a week later I was gone. This guy also wore an inspectors hat as well as being a contractor in the state.

Go figure.

Unless those A/C units are 36" from the building. The larger unit's (one on the right) disconnect does not meet spacing requirements. it doesn't look like they are 3 feet from the building to me.

Since you installed PVC conduit and a LB outside why wouldn't you just continue it to the panel and not use the cable. Just one elbow and a short piece of pipe

That's how I prefer to do it, but... "Ron, make sure you use up that extra SE we have laying around the shop for that service you're doing."

"Ok, boss."

As far as the spacing for the condensing units, wouldn't that be an issue for the HVAC man? It's very rare that I see CU's spaced further than 24" from the outside wall. Very rare.

The unit on the left is fine because the disconnect in not behind the units, it is off to the side(not much but still off to the side) The inspectors around here would not pass the one on the right. No it is not an issue for the HVAC people. Both disconnects should have been to the left side of the units

Also our POCO would have insisted the riser go through the roof in IMC or RMC to keep the ice off their triplex unless they connected their wire on the gable end of the house.

Believe or not..... once I had an inspector tell me weatherheads are not approved installed horizontally

[This message has been edited by velect (edited 11-18-2006).]

250.104(C) for the steel in the basement

I have to disagree with that.

The steel in a typical basement does not make up the frame of a wood structure.

I also feel that isolated sections of steel are not going to become energized.

2002

[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 11-19-2006).]

Bob:
FWIW, the steel beam MAY become energized by any conductors that may pass over it. No, there are no conductors going over Shock's steel in the pic.

Now, before I start a war.....the above comment is a popular consensus of how steel beams are treated in areas that I am familiar with. A opinion from DCA favored bonding steel beams as in Shock's pic.

Stay safe..
John

if it does not make up a frame connected to the vertical poles what is it there for? looks? the beam and verticles are interconnected to make a support frame. now the interpretation of may become energized is open to anyone

[This message has been edited by dannynova (edited 11-23-2006).]

My metal file cabinet may become energized as a lamp cord is resting on it.

I don't have to bond it.

Of course if I was in NJ I would have to play by their rules but IM(not so H)O it is a bad call on NJs building dept.


Whatever reason it is there for it is not "a steel building frame" it is just some steel supports.

If I had an all steel building frame with some wood framed walls would you now say it is a wood framed building?

There is a real need to "learn" before you start "inventing."

Sure, a lot of things are not spelled out, are inferred, or considered so common as to not require eleboration. To top it all off, language is not perfect- but it's all we've got!

A reference to a "steel building frame" is generally considered to be a reference to a sort of construction where I-beams and such make up the primary construction of a building .... and not a reference to every incidental piece of steel that might be present.
This reference is NOT generally applie to steel roofing, or aluminum siding, or - as in the pic- an incidental load beam. We're talking houses here, not swimming pools.
There is even some room for debate as to whether the requirement would apply to those light-steel buildings, commonly used for commercial construction.

IMO, one of the prime consideration is that the beams in a traditional steel beam structure may be used for the grounding of transformers, or other power sources.

"May become energised" is another such statement. Sure, anything, anywhere, can, under the right conditions, become energised. Even an empty soda can afloat in the ocean.

So, we need to look at 'where will the electricity come from.' A wire running alongside is generally not considered a source of risk. Change that to a steel junction box, and the answer likely will change. Make it a metal box with both connections and loads - say, a water heater- and the answer is a definite "bond it!"

Another issue we can't escape: code aside, it simply is not possible to be an electrician without making countless 'judgement calls.' That's what a journeyman is paid to do. We're not just a bunch of trained apes, following a cookbook recipe. You can't become an electrician by reading a book, attending seminars, or simply "being logical." You also have to be in the field, doing the work. There are countless differing situations out there, a multitude of construction types. In short, you have to "learn the trade."