clearance from stud face

[crossman gary]

Good thread.

I agree with Al's reasoning and believe it is the intention of the CMP.

 

[LarryFine]

Since nobody else asked, I will: What's with the 9v batteries? :-?

 

[don_resqcapt19]

...
Rob and Don, you state that this cable is "parallel" when it is obviously at an angle of some number of degrees to the plane it is "parallel" to. What document determines the +/- degrees off parallel that is still "parallel" at the "intent" of the CMPs?

I don't think the word parallel really has anything to do with the panel's "intent". I don't have any ROPs or ROCs to back this up, but it is my opinion that the intent is to keep the NM 1 1/4" from the framing member or provide a nail plate. I think a proposal for the 2014 code to remove the word parallel would clear this issue up...either way we would have a panel statement.

 

[480sparky]

Since nobody else asked, I will: What's with the 9v batteries? :-?

http://forums.mikeholt.com/showpost.php?p=1078608&postcount=30

 

[al hildenbrand]

I don't have any ROPs or ROCs to back this up, . . .

For everyone's edification, the "Cables and Raceways Parallel To . . . ." passage of 300.4 was first introduced into the NEC in the 1990 edition.

I think a proposal for the 2014 code to remove the word parallel would clear this issue up . . .

If the word parallel (two instances) is removed from 300.4(D) then the installation shown in 300.4(D) Exhibit 300.2 requires nail plates at every crossing of a 2 x 12 ceiling joist, unless one says that the 2 x 12 is not likely to have screws or nails put in it.

The dropping of "parallel" in 300.4(D) also creates conflict with 300.4(A) and the long accepted practice of nail plating only the framing member, and not the air on the sides of the framing member.

A conflict is also created with 300.4(F).

 

[crossman gary]

The dropping of "parallel" in 300.4(D) also creates conflict with 300.4(A) and the long accepted practice of nail plating only the framing member, and not the air on the sides of the framing member.

Impeccable logic. You just can't argue with that.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Ok, Al,
I will amend my proposal to say: "adopt the Chicago code".

 

[al hildenbrand]

Ok, Al,
I will amend my proposal to say: "adopt the Chicago code".

:grin:

[laughing] Thanks, Don! [/laughing]

 

[mivey]

No matter how you draw it or install it, there is a section, maybe a very very short section, at the KO that is parallel to the framing member...you can't use the KO next to the framing member unless you use a nail plate to protect the NM.

I do not agree with the short section parallel assessment. I would argue that you could make the turn into the box without being parallel...calculus included.

I agree with Al that it is not installed parallel. If you want to call it parallel, for whatever reason, at least get back to common sense and consider this post: http://forums.mikeholt.com/showpost.php?p=715892&postcount=32 where the manufacturer notes that most box locations make it unlikely that nails or screws will penetrate.

I agree with Don. If you were to follow the actually wording of the code you would need a protective plate at each plastic box using a KO less than 1.25" from the stud. Seems pretty ridiculous to me. Maybe a proposal is in order. :smile:

Only if you have inspectors taking liberties with interpretations and common sense would you need some clarification...so maybe we need it (even though I have never seen a ridiculous KO ruling like that).

...What document determines the +/- degrees off parallel that is still "parallel" at the "intent" of the CMPs?

I agree. When you have to use multiple extremes to get your point to stick, you are forcing your argument.

 

[Rick Christopherson]

I don't think the "parallel" argument can really stand up from a legal interpretation of code. If that were to stand, then it could be argued that the entire run down the stud was not truly parallel because NM will never lie perfectly flat between staples. For example, to circumvent the ruling on a furring strip, all you would have to do is spiral twist the cable and it wouldn't technically be parallel.

I think that the only viable argument would have to focus on the "...where nails or screws are likely to penetrate." wording. The cable is not in direct contact with the stud at the point of entry to the box, and it is not fastened in place at the point of entry.

If a nail were driven into the stud with reasonable care (i.e. not at steep angle) it would be reasonable to assume that the nail would be unlikely to deflect sufficiently far to span the gap between the stud and the knock out. It doesn't mean that it can never happen, only that with reasonable care, it is unlikely to happen.