Is this a violation

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nickelec

Senior Member
Location
US
I don't do to much nm here in NYC. It's about 8' up in the air
3f1b0885635be3cc5667be6fae2b7c51.jpg


Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 
I would consider that subject to physical damage. But, hey, that's always been a point of interpretation in the NEC as it's a very subjective idea. Ahah

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Yes it is a violation because it’s subject to damage. For example if I leaned a ladder on that wall it could be damaged.

Solution: Use MC, it’s close to the same price.

NEC 334.15(B)
* I’m using the 2014 at the moment.

Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, Type RTRC marked with the suffix -XW, or other approved means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Cybatrex said:
Yes it is a violation because it’s subject to damage. For example if I leaned a ladder on that wall it could be damaged.

Solution: Use MC, it’s close to the same price.

NEC 334.15(B)
* I’m using the 2014 at the moment.

Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, Type RTRC marked with the suffix -XW, or other approved means.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yeah, I hear of people getting away with MC cable in cases like this, but if you read the section on MC it has the same physical damage clause. I don't think the MC armor offers much in the way of crush protection.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
It has been common practice since I've been in the trade not to sleeve nm in conduit typical for a vertical run not horizontal. Example a switch basement switch or receptacle against a concrete wall could be secured to a piece of strapping/ 2x4 or sleeved properly in a raceway.
Inspectors would fail it for not being properly secured stapling into to gypsum board does usually fly.
 
infinity said:
IMO it's not much different than having exposed NM cables enter a panel in a basement and they're much lower than 8'.
Click to expand...
Yes I totally agree. It's so weird that certain things seem to be arbitrarily allowed. Like I said the whole physical damage thing, and many things in the NEC are subject to AHJ interpretation. But most inspectors agree that romex stapled securely to a piece of plywood and entering the top of a panel is reasonable. I see some electricians run the cables down the side and enter the side KOs, but I n wouldn't approve that if I were an inspector.

I reason it like this: if something were to fall over and strike the wall where the panel is, it would likely hit the panel enclosure first, thus protecting the cables. The likelihood if something pinpointing the precise location in that small area where the romex drops down is slim.

Same thing where it's run through exposed floor joists in a basement. The joists somewhat protect the cables from being struck (although certainly not from people hanging things on them). What I hate is when people run them along the bottom of a joist or a running board, but it's allowed. Now it's an open target with a firm backing to ensure maximum damage if struck.

Now you run romez down a wall to a receptacle in a basement, then yes, better sleeve that in pipe.

In the case of the garage wiring in in OPS picture. I would say the likelihood of damage to that cable is moderate to great. Think of all the activity that occurs in garages. Moving around shovels, rakes, etc.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
DrSparks said:
Yeah, I hear of people getting away with MC cable in cases like this, but if you read the section on MC it has the same physical damage clause. I don't think the MC armor offers much in the way of crush protection.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Again "subject to damage" is subjective to interpretation. Leaning a ladder on it may not be all that damaging. Having a 100 pound person using ladder as it leans on it may be increased damage potential, having 350 pound person using ladder might be quite a bit more damaging potential.

Others may feel above a certain height maybe people will be more careful when something may be potentially damaging, but down low is subject to a lot of possibilities. Then you still can get severe enough abuse that you can still damage whatever you sleeve it in as well. So I guess wireless methods of power transmission are needed if you want to assure nothing will happen to your delivery means (conductors/cables/raceways)
 
kwired said:
Again "subject to damage" is subjective to interpretation. Leaning a ladder on it may not be all that damaging. Having a 100 pound person using ladder as it leans on it may be increased damage potential, having 350 pound person using ladder might be quite a bit more damaging potential.

Others may feel above a certain height maybe people will be more careful when something may be potentially damaging, but down low is subject to a lot of possibilities. Then you still can get severe enough abuse that you can still damage whatever you sleeve it in as well. So I guess wireless methods of power transmission are needed if you want to assure nothing will happen to your delivery means (conductors/cables/raceways)
Click to expand...
Haha I literally just got done saying that. Ok, now let's talk about severe physical damage!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
DrSparks said:
Haha I literally just got done saying that. Ok, now let's talk about severe physical damage!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Think I replied just a minute later then you, hadn't seen yours yet.

Everything is subject to severe physical damage, though may not be likely in normal operation. You fix it when it gets damaged in those rare events.
 
There is also part of it a section of what looks like UF. That too could be interpreted a violation of 340.12(10).
 
I don't think Romex on a garage wall is necessarily subject to physical damage. In fact, I think MC would damaged easier.

I don't do it. I sleeve when it's surface mounted. But that's more out of habit I think
 
IMO almost everyone goes way overboard with this "subject to physical damage". really guys, what on Earth is going to damage that cable especially at eight feet up? Hang a rake on it, lean a ladder against it I'm sure it's going to be just fine. The nec allows exposed NM, as long as it closely follows the surface, so I hate this interpretation that whenever it's run exposed, then it's subject to physical damage. Why did the code writers allow it be run on the surface then if whenever it's run on the surface its subject to physical damage and thus can't be run exposed..... 😕🙃😶??

All that said, I do consider that pretty hack....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top