Garage romex protection

[infinity]

I got gigged once for using conduit to protect some romex for a short (3') run to get to a wall as the conduit derates in size so much with "insulated wires". Does this still apply to a short sleeve thru a stud or joist?

For a 3' piece you may be able to apply 310.15(A)(2)Exception. This would require a minimum circuit length of 30'. If you had 30' or more then no derating would apply.

 

[lakee911]

SmallFish,
As Infinity said to start with, install some running boards and tack your romex to it.

Running Board ... How is this defined?

 

[Den]

For a 3' piece you may be able to apply 310.15(A)(2)Exception. This would require a minimum circuit length of 30'. If you had 30' or more then no derating would apply.

Thanks. My state inspector doesn't like the word "exception" but the co inspector is ok with it if its in the book

 

[Volta]

If I understand your post, no protection is required other than from the front edge of the stud. Assuming a wall.

If the ceiling, how is this different from a basement ceiling?

Bacause the requirement to bore holes when the cables are run at angles to the joists specifcally names the two locations it is needed in, basements and crawlspaces. Not other locations. 334.15(C). Though Iwire showed it to be moot for detached garages 334.10(3).

Running Board ... How is this defined?

A board attached usually at angles to the framing members or surface of a structure, of a thickness and width sufficient to provide stability and afford protection to one or more cables secured to it width.

Think of a 1 x 4 board with the NM stapled to it's face.

 

[macmikeman]

I had an inspector once who insisted I sleeve the garage vertical runs of exposed romex in ent. Thats ent. ENT. :roll: So I did....

 

[TOOL_5150]

I had an inspector once who insisted I sleeve the garage vertical runs of exposed romex in ent. Thats ent. ENT. :roll: So I did....

wow... that did a lot of good. At least you didnt have to bond it. :grin:

~Matt

 

[ORsparky]

NMB Physical damage

NMB Physical damage

In my jurisdiction the inspectors would not allow horizontal runs of NMB through uncovered framing walls in a garage unless they were above 8 feet. This was due to the previously mentioned "physical damage" associated with tools, and the traditional work that goes on in a typical residential garage. They had no problem with the vertical exposed runs alongside the same framing members.

 

[infinity]

In my jurisdiction the inspectors would not allow horizontal runs of NMB through uncovered framing walls in a garage unless they were above 8 feet. This was due to the previously mentioned "physical damage" associated with tools, and the traditional work that goes on in a typical residential garage. They had no problem with the vertical exposed runs alongside the same framing members.

It seems logical that a cable stapled to the side of the stud would be better protected than one spanning a stud cavity between holes. Although the 8' dimension is not in the NEC there are many jurisdictions that have similar requirements to protect from physical damage.

Welcome to the Forum.

 

[cpal]

In my jurisdiction the inspectors would not allow horizontal runs of NMB through uncovered framing walls in a garage unless they were above 8 feet. This was due to the previously mentioned "physical damage" associated with tools, and the traditional work that goes on in a typical residential garage. They had no problem with the vertical exposed runs alongside the same framing members.

local rules are fine but for discussion , if a horizontal run is exposed to physical damage , why wouldn't a verticle run be exposed to physical damage ?

 

[infinity]

why wouldn't a verticle run be exposed to physical damage ?

One thought is that since it's stapled to the side of the stud it has been less of a chance of being damaged by being caught on something. IMO either way it's still subject to physical damage.

 

[jxofaltrds]

In my jurisdiction the inspectors would not allow horizontal runs of NMB through uncovered framing walls in a garage unless they were above 8 feet. This was due to the previously mentioned "physical damage" associated with tools, and the traditional work that goes on in a typical residential garage. They had no problem with the vertical exposed runs alongside the same framing members.

Sounds like another reasonable inspector. Can I say common sense again?