Code Violation

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

anbm

Senior Member
Location
TX
Occupation
Designer
Does NEC allow conduits run through building wood frame as in attached picture?
(it appears large, small conduits and cables all run through structural wood frame), if so, which NEC section is not code compliance?

pvc_cond.jpg
 
It is not an NEC issue but rather a building code problem. The holes in the left picture aren't an issue as that is just a block of wood an not structural.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
It is not an NEC issue but rather a building code problem. The holes in the left picture aren't an issue as that is just a block of wood an not structural.
Click to expand...

It’s possible none of it is structural. There appear to be trusses above, so that wall is not likely load-bearing. At any rate, building codes would dictate, not NEC as you stated.
 
How's about this rule?

300.4(A) Cables and Raceways Through Wood Members.
(1) Bored Holes. In both exposed and concealed locations, where a cable- or raceway-
type wiring method is installed through bored holes in joists, rafters, or wood members,
holes shall be bored so that the edge of the hole is not less than 32 mm (1-1∕4 in.) from
the nearest edge of the wood member. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the
cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by screws or nails by a steel
plate(s) or bushing(s), at least 1.6 mm (1∕16 in.) thick, and of appropriate length and
width installed to cover the area of the wiring.
 
I first thought the 2 on the left were PVC,,,, I think they're actually Carflex,,, not that it matters.

JAP>
 
LarryFine said:
Definitely rigid PVC; you can see couplings on the elbows above the top plate.
Click to expand...
On the 1/2" pvc stubups on the right I do, but, not on the 2 larger one's in the middle.

Maybe I'm missing something.

JAP>
 
jap said:
On the 1/2" pvc stubups on the right I do, but, not on the 2 larger one's in the middle.

Maybe I'm missing something.
Click to expand...
My apologies. I didn't realize which post you were addressing. I agree with your assessment.
 
LarryFine said:
A bit messy, but it looks compliant to me. Wall top plates are rarely weakened by holes.
Click to expand...
The IRC requires any hole or notch more than 50% of the width of a top plate in a bearing wall be structurally augmented with a metal strap or continuous sheathing on one side. Obviously not an issue in a non-bearing wall.


I'm not finding anything similar in the IBC, but it would seem like a good practice.

Cheers, Wayne
 
wwhitney said:
The IRC requires any hole or notch more than 50% of the width of a top plate in a bearing wall be structurally augmented with a metal strap or continuous sheathing on one side. Obviously not an issue in a non-bearing wall.
Click to expand...
Good to know. Thank you.

I'm sure this one is non-load-bearing, and the holes don't approach 50%.
 
LarryFine said:
My apologies. I didn't realize which post you were addressing. I agree with your assessment.
Click to expand...

I wish we could see the whole picture.

The 2 larger ones may be panel feeders but if so would like to see how they got all that into flush mount panels with them coming down in separate voids and all.

Maybe a flush mount gutter then down to a couple of flush mount panels?

Lot of speculation.


JAP>
 
jap said:
The 2 larger ones may be panel feeders but if so would like to see how they got all that into flush mount panels with them coming down in separate voids and all.
Click to expand...
Perhaps each one makes a 90 into the lower side KO of each panel.
 
LarryFine said:
Perhaps each one makes a 90 into the lower side KO of each panel.
Click to expand...
The larger flexes coming down would have to cris-cross to get into the side of the panels,otherwise you'd have some sort of 90d fitting hidden behind the sheet rock.

But you're right,,,, I don't think the larger ones could cross each other to get into the panels ,,, there wouldn't be enough room in the void for that to happen.


JAP>
 
Last edited:
I don't think that just because there are trusses that the wall isn't load bearing. It depends on how long the truss is as it may be designed with that wall as a load bearer.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I don't think that just because there are trusses that the wall isn't load bearing. It depends on how long the truss is as it may be designed with that wall as a load bearer.
Click to expand...
That's certainly a possibility. I noticed that the room behind this wall has perpendicular joists for a lower ceiling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top