334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Status
Not open for further replies.

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
1.) NEC Section/Paragraph:
334.15(C) In Unfinished Basements. Where cable is run at angles with joists in unfinished basements, it shall be permissible to secure cables not smaller than two 6 AWG or three 8 AWG conductors directly to the lower edges of the joists. Smaller cables shall be run either through bored holes in joists or on running boards. NM cable used on a wall of an unfinished basement shall be permitted to be installed in a listed conduit or tubing. Conduit or tubing shall utilize a nonmetallic bushing or adapter at the point the cable enters the raceway. Metal conduit and tubings and metal outlet boxes shall be grounded.

2.) Proposal Recommends: [new text/revised text]

3.) Proposal:
334.15(C) In Unfinished Basements. Where cable is run at angles with joists in unfinished basements, it shall be permissible to secure cables not smaller than two 6 AWG or three 8 AWG conductors directly to the lower edges of the joists. Smaller cables shall be run through bored holes in joists. NM cable used on a wall of an unfinished basement shall be permitted to be installed in a listed conduit or tubing. Conduit or tubing shall utilize a nonmetallic bushing or adapter at the point the cable enters the raceway. Metal conduit and tubings and metal outlet boxes shall be grounded.

Exception: Smaller cables secured at intervals not exceeding 900 mm (3 ft) by staples, cable ties, straps, hangers, or similar fitting designed and installed so as to not damage the cable(s) shall be permitted to be secured to the lower edges of joists if all of the following conditions are met:
(a) The installation would be in line with ducts and/or plenums used for environmental air and within 50 mm (2 in) of ducts used for environmental air, or
(b) The installation would be in line with a structural member such as a steel I-Beam or laminate, and attached to or within 50 mm (2 in) of the structural member.
(c) Under the conditions of (a) or (b), a larger cable not smaller than two 6 AWG or three 8 AWG conductors shall be installed 25 mm (1 in) outside of the smaller cable bundle.


4.) Substantiation:
In applications currently requiring bored holes through joists, multiple holes are required resulting in unnecessary weakening in building structure, damage to plumbing/electrical/HVAC installations during construction, and spent labor. Allowing smaller cables to be run under these conditions would provide protection to these smaller cables by means of the larger cable run on the outside. If the intent of this code is to protect against tenant damage of cables by clothes hangers and similar activity, the larger cable to the outside would still provide this, as in existing code. In addition, a large percentage of unfinished basements are finished at a later date, and the provisions of this proposal would place cables in areas that are enclosed by standard practices.

In addition, there is confusion in the field by the intent of the phrase, "or on running boards," hence the deletion. With an exception providing a second option, this wording becomes redundant.

Gentlemen, commence with the rock-throwing.
 

physis

Senior Member
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Can still put a clothes hanger on just a 14 AWG. :)
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Originally posted by physis:
Can still put a clothes hanger on just a 14 AWG. :)
Really? With a lamm on one side, a 6/3 on the other?
:)

[ December 06, 2004, 12:03 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 

charlie

Senior Member
Location
Indianapolis
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

I am not so sure that I like the idea. However, when it is submitted, be sure to use legislative text (strikeout removed wording and underlined new words).

You are giving up a method that may be used in a tight situation (running boards) and still can not guarantee that nothing will be hung on the #14. :D
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

I agree that cutting the running boards part was a weird move, let me explain my reasoning, (for my own education!) Believe it or not, the running board part can be pretty sketchy. My question to you guys is, when you read the existing code, how do you envision that installation?

I pictured it the way I was originally taught, with romex secured to the side of the running board, which generally would be actually secured to the laminate or to the 2x4 atop an I-Beam. When a person attempts to hang a coathanger on this installation, the odds are the point of the hanger is supported by the running board.

When I first worked in Cheyenne, I discovered (by failing a house) that their interpretation is underneath the running board.

My literal interpretation of this is that the romex should be attached above the running board, although I've always dismissed this most literal interpretation as being physically highly difficult to pull off. I envision a 2x4 nailed 1.5" away from my cover, and then installing the cables, and then coming back and nailing another 2x4 flush against the duct, etc, which puts a running board beneath the cables.

What do you guys see? Is the coat hanger analogy indeed the intent behind the "running board" text? I'm all for clarifying and keeping the running boards text, as in my experience there is a wide interpretation of it.
You are giving up a method that may be used in a tight situation (running boards) and still can not guarantee that nothing will be hung on the #14.
Charlie, you concur that the 6/3 requirement is not protecting my 14-2. Is there a change in measurements or something along the lines of what I'm shooting for that I can edit? Bear in mind, I'm six foot, I look at everything from my perspective. I can easily hang a coathanger on romex run through joists! :D

Off the subject somewhat, when applied to the accessible attics portion, I think we'd agree that "on" is "on top of" running boards, right?

[ December 06, 2004, 07:23 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Originally posted by georgestolz:
Off the subject somewhat, when applied to the accessible attics portion, I think we'd agree that "on" is "on top of" running boards, right?
To me, in this type of context, "on" means physically adjacent to, regardless of orientation.
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Okay, I am posting on one the most intelligent and verbose websites I have ever come across, and I get "You bet?" I have a desire to hear and understand where everybody else is coming from on this issue. Throw me a bone here! Throw me an insult, tell me it ain't gonna fly & why! :)

Can anyone envision a measurement or other scenario where they feel the #14 is safe? Literally speaking, securing small cables to microlam is securing small cables to a big, thick running board.

To me, in this type of context, "on" means physically adjacent to, regardless of orientation.
To pick on you here, by your definition, the duct would be a running board. Stapling the romex to the bottom of the joist, flush against the duct, would in essence be securing the romex adjacent to a running board. Can you see it too?

If it helps, what brings this on at my job is that I can install cables in joists just fine. But then I get to a microlam, and have to dive under it anyway. In some instances, as many as three times. It looks ridiculous, not to mention it's more difficult to pull. What's more, for me (personally), I have a higher tendency to rope burn when using holes in TGI's. In many cases, my panel is on one side of the house and my kitchen is on the other.

Thoughts? How are the masses envisioning the 14 damage occuring?
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

A wise man (forgive me, I forget who it is) has written in his signature something along the lines that "just because it's standard practice, doesn't mean it's necessarily safe."

This item is standard practice for me. It's how I was trained. This does not mean that I will not receive feedback regarding this practice and why I should discontinue. I humbly ask for feedback on this issue. I have discovered things here I would never learn, and I would regret it if I did not have clarification from you guys.

Thank you,
George
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Its hard for me to envision the people who concocted the NEC with such precise language would have used the word "on" when they really meant something like "on top of".

Its pretty obvious that "on" means "on", regardless of whether it is "on" the side of something or "on" the top of something.
 

peter d

Senior Member
Location
New England
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Ok George, I'm slightly on your side here. Just slightly though. :p

I have seen plenty of times where people hang stuff off of #14 cable that run through holes drilled through joists.

So where do we diverge? Basically, I think this proposal, if accepted, would open the door to some very sloppy installations.
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Only got a second, sorry.
True. But is that currently addressed with this code? Can get sloppy with joists too, depending on your bar of slop. :) My anti-slop mechanism was the 3 ft thing, think that helps or does nothing?

<Edited enforced to addressed, then added...>

You have a very good point. My thought is the actual NEC is 99% how it works, and 1% how it looks, IMO. I can bend a pipe to code but if I were try to bend a pipe pretty, it ain't a gonna happen! :) Don't you think that 110.12 is ultimately the tool for the AHJ to keep anything from getting out of hand?
Example:
I forgot my buddy from Mass! This guy got hired at my shop, and he came from a 4-man outfit in Mass which took the time to pull everything straight, square 90's overhead, very very neat. His boss took his time, charged a high amount, but was in demand for his superior work. That is very cool; but is it code? Would we all agree that the level of quality that his boss demanded should be striven for but not required by NEC?

[ December 10, 2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 

heco

Member
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

When the code say " On a running board"...I assume it means..
Nail a 1x6 to the bottom side of the floor joist[ for the length of the run of NM cabel] and then secure the NM cable to the 1x6....Hence..On a running board...
You will not have any cloths hangers hangin on the 14/2 romex...hummm
 

physis

Senior Member
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Where Im at, NM isn't allowed exposed (except 6 AWG and up).
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Where Im at, NM isn't allowed exposed (except 6 AWG and up).
So you have to flex into your bsmt switches? The cables running through floor joists in the basement ceiling are ok in SF, right?

Thanks for the reply, Sam. :) You bested your record by 10 words! :D
 

jwelectric

Senior Member
Location
North Carolina
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

George
To a great extent I agree with you. I think that sometimes as we install, inspect and design electrical systems the true purpose of the NEC is lost through interruptions. It is all about the practical safeguarding of persons and property. This being said I thought that I would add my two cents about this running board thing. The NEC Handbook 2002 I ordered from NFPA Exhibit 334.1 shows the cable fastened to the underside of the running board.
I have had several jobs pass with NM cable ran next to the duck work or sewage line with out running boards. Like you I feel this is protection for these cables.
 

physis

Senior Member
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Man, are you still sore?

Actually I have to use EMT. So cry me a river already!

You people just don't have enough hair on your chests!

Edit: :)

[ January 08, 2005, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: physis ]
 

pierre

Senior Member
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Like others, I have been in many basements where not only the laundry, but lumber, pipes, etc... are hung from or above the cable. The running board really offers the best protection, but boring holes is permitted.
Yes I agree that installing the cables by the beam or ductwork is not a bad solution, as there is some protection from future construction, but they will still find ways to hang "stuff" from the cable.

Pierre
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Re: 334.15 (C) Unfinished Basements

Like others, I have been in many basements where not only the laundry, but lumber, pipes, etc... are hung from or above the cable.
Pierre, I can't make sense of what you said here. Did you jumble words or did you mean what you said?
Man, are you still sore?

Actually I have to use EMT. So cry me a river already!

You people just don't have enough hair on your chests!
Nah, not sore. I got all wrapped up in something, and expected everybody else to care. This isn't exactly curing cancer here. Since getting all emotional, I've noticed this area of the forum moves a little slower than NEC. I do appreciate the feedback, all. :)

Having to use EMT would suck, I'd sympathize but you and your hairy buddies would probably beat me up for it. :D

[ January 08, 2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top