Pass or Fail

Learn the NEC with Mike Holt now!

Pass or Fail

  • Pass

    Votes: 14 19.4%

  • Reject

    Votes: 58 80.6%
  • Total voters
    72
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally think it stinks, but after reading 480 Sparkys comments in that thread where the picture came from, that the 1 1/4" from the edge only applies to bored holes just had to read it for myself & have to agree w/ him.
 
norcal said:
I personally think it stinks, but after reading 480 Sparkys comments in that thread where the picture came from, that the 1 1/4" from the edge only applies to bored holes just had to read it for myself & have to agree w/ him.
Click to expand...

Read the correct section.

300.4(D) Cables and Raceways Parallel to Framing Members and Furring Strips. In both exposed and concealed locations, where a cable- or raceway-type wiring method is installed parallel to framing members, such as joists, rafters, or studs, or is installed parallel to furring strips, the cable or raceway shall be installed and supported so that the nearest outside surface of the cable or raceway is not less than 32 mm (1? in.) from the nearest edge of the framing member or furring strips where nails or screws are likely to penetrate. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by nails or screws by a steel plate, sleeve, or equivalent at least 1.6 mm ( in.) thick.
Click to expand...
 
infinity said:
Read the correct section.
Click to expand...

Thank you! There are 6 houses that were built across the street from me by a local "self-help" agency where the EC (IMO a DIYer w/ a C10 lic) did the same thing except they/it would not have the NM entering from the bottom of the boxes, all were brought in the boxes from the top & it of course was inspected & passed by the inspectors from the People's Republic ...
 
Read the correct section.


Quote:
300.4(D) Cables and Raceways Parallel to Framing Members and Furring Strips. In both exposed and concealed locations, where a cable- or raceway-type wiring method is installed parallel to framing members, such as joists, rafters, or studs, or is installed parallel to furring strips, the cable or raceway shall be installed and supported so that the nearest outside surface of the cable or raceway is not less than 32 mm (1? in.) from the nearest edge of the framing member or furring strips where nails or screws are likely to penetrate. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by nails or screws by a steel plate, sleeve, or equivalent at least 1.6 mm ( in.) thick.
__________________
Click to expand...

For years I have always wondered why we have to keep cables 1-1/4 inch from the edge of the stud, but yet if only a 2x4 stud, most device boxes have the cable entry closer than that from the back side of the wall.

I have never heard of an inspector picking on it as long as your cable fastening means keeps the cable 1-1/4 inch away, but if you are going to be real hard on enforcement this should not be allowed.

As shown in picture with cable running behind the box I've seen it fail and it should.
 
Carlon's stated opinion is that switch boxes and outlet boxes are typically installed at heights not likely to kick in the requirement. I find that thinking flawed, as we are required to nailplate a hole regardless of where it's drilled.

I'm not going to vote yet, but my first instinct is "pass."
 
Looks like a 300.4 (D) violation to me. Maybe a 334.24 Probably a 334.30 as well. If I was inspecting I'd probably ignore it. If it was every box I might dope slap the installer and tell him to call me when he gets some decent training.
 
kwired said:
For years I have always wondered why we have to keep cables 1-1/4 inch from the edge of the stud, but yet if only a 2x4 stud, most device boxes have the cable entry closer than that from the back side of the wall.

I have never heard of an inspector picking on it as long as your cable fastening means keeps the cable 1-1/4 inch away, but if you are going to be real hard on enforcement this should not be allowed.

As shown in picture with cable running behind the box I've seen it fail and it should.
Click to expand...

The reasoning behind the 1 1/4" is to prevent hitting the wireing with screws/nails when putting up drywall or other wall covering.
I have seen the wire running behind the box and it pass. I have also seen it fail just depends on the inspector that day.
I agree the design of the boxes will bring the wire closer to the edge than 1 1/4" so if an inspector really pushed 300.4 (D) he could require a nail plate behind the box. Oh, happy days
 
I think it looks like doo-doo, but I would pass it, not without giving the installer a hard time about it. The question I ask all of you that say "fail it" is why is that a "fail" but the NM into the top of the box "Pass" ? Both are the same distance from the stud face. What about the inside of the box at the back, it is within a 1/2" on the wall surface and plastic boxes don't stop nails to well?
I avoid this type of problem by placing my switches on a block to space them away from the door trim, not to get clearance for the NM but to clear the trim. The added distance from the "nailing face" is a plus. If I bring 1 or 2 NM's into a box, I use the hole that is farther from the stud face. When I need to go around a box (top to bottom) I go around the side.
 
Just not good workmanship:
Around here it would fail because of code.

334.30 ???Flat cables shall not be stapled on edge.
 
ceb58 said:
The reasoning behind the 1 1/4" is to prevent hitting the wireing with screws/nails when putting up drywall or other wall covering.
I have seen the wire running behind the box and it pass. I have also seen it fail just depends on the inspector that day.
I agree the design of the boxes will bring the wire closer to the edge than 1 1/4" so if an inspector really pushed 300.4 (D) he could require a nail plate behind the box. Oh, happy days
Click to expand...

Exactly, now what is going to keep a nail or screw that barely missed the stud (it happens a lot) from hitting or penetrating the portion of cable that is near the box and is not 1-1/4 inch or more from the edge of the stud?

I never worry about it and can't ever remember having problems with it, but it is a code violation, and is very difficult to comply unless you don't use non metallic nail on boxes on 2x4 stud walls
 
Last edited:
acrwc10 said:
I think it looks like doo-doo, but I would pass it, not without giving the installer a hard time about it. The question I ask all of you that say "fail it" is why is that a "fail" but the NM into the top of the box "Pass" ? Both are the same distance from the stud face. What about the inside of the box at the back, it is within a 1/2" on the wall surface and plastic boxes don't stop nails to well?
I avoid this type of problem by placing my switches on a block to space them away from the door trim, not to get clearance for the NM but to clear the trim. The added distance from the "nailing face" is a plus. If I bring 1 or 2 NM's into a box, I use the hole that is farther from the stud face. When I need to go around a box (top to bottom) I go around the side.
Click to expand...

The blocks are something I use also but in another thread I got blasted for saying that because they said when you add the block it becomes a framing member also . I know that is true but is is bound to help if when a drywall installer has found a stud he decides to jump an extra stud width over only when he passes the box . But , I got told the block was no help :roll:
 
Last edited:
augie47 said:
Borrowing from another thread and following up on Dennis' comment,
would you pass or reject this ?

View attachment 5190
Click to expand...

I would fail it for sure, parallel conductors to stud less than 1.25 from edge . I would have put one of the bottom cables in the top . The other two would came down on the other side of stud . When i got below the box I would drill through the stud to bring another cable in the bottom of the box :grin:
 
Last edited:
Higher authority

Higher authority

Might be NEC "OK" ....but

This would not pass my code , a higher authority


Don "Outstanding Citizen of the Conch Republic"
 
The pictures posted was just an example of the workmanship that is not there.
This was done all over the house.In a lot of cases I could not figure out why he went to the bottom of the box instead of using the available knock out on top.
After i got into changing & redoing a few I figured out he was pulling feeder wires to bottom.I guess this was his way of lableing the wires. And by the way our Inspector did ask that a lot of this mess be fixed.I called for a safety Inspection before I touched the work. The worst thing was the panels were set 18" to high.we lowered them to proper height.
 
I would agree 334.24 entered my mind when I first saw the photo. I would have brought all 3 cables through the top knockouts as I believe is permitted in 314.17(C) exception.
 
Teaspoon said:
The pictures posted was just an example of the workmanship that is not there.
This was done all over the house.In a lot of cases I could not figure out why he went to the bottom of the box instead of using the available knock out on top.
After i got into changing & redoing a few I figured out he was pulling feeder wires to bottom.I guess this was his way of lableing the wires. And by the way our Inspector did ask that a lot of this mess be fixed.I called for a safety Inspection before I touched the work. The worst thing was the panels were set 18" to high.we lowered them to proper height.
Click to expand...

I always put feeders in the left most space of a box (1 gang or more), outputs to the right. It seems straight forward enough to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top