334.10 philosophy

[hsmay]

Curious what the rational is that permits "exposed" NM cable in type III, IV, and V multifamily dwellings, while prohibiting it in type III, IV and V other structures? (2) vs (3)

 

[cadpoint]

The Code is what it is! It's not a mix and match situation!

This gets into class of Structure which is a building code and not the NEC Code.

While the NEC is reflective as to the application of a building code, you just have to accept this!

 

[peter d]

Curious what the rational is that permits "exposed" NM cable in type III, IV, and V multifamily dwellings, while prohibiting it in type III, IV and V other structures? (2) vs (3)

I have often wondered the same thing. The argument I usually hear is it contributes to the smoke load of a fire, but I don't buy that for one millisecond when you take into account these same buildings are often filled with PVC, CVPC and PEX plumbing methods, as well as all the low voltage cable.

 

[hsmay]

Thanks Peter. I'm glad to know that I am not the only one who cannot find any clear cut rationale for this.

 

[Pierre C Belarge]

It is a combination of the additional smoke load, people in building types I & II are usually unfamilar with the emergency routes of egress in these type buildings and a compromise with the Steel Tube industry.

 

[kbsparky]

Its all a bunch of horsesqueeze. These rules were made to satisfy the likes of paid industry lobbyists who have specific manufacturer's interests in mind.

Compromises were made to appease those industries/lobbyists/special interests and the results are the Codes you see in effect today, with little common sense left in them.

 

[hsmay]

Now I know where our congressmen go when they are voted out of office.