Box Recommendation for Furred Out Wall

[Jerramundi]

I don't think masonry boxes have been mentioned but I see them as more of a hassle for me if we were to use them. I have to push this desk during the day and will most likely not be present when the walls are poured. It seems easier to me to show up after the fact and install wiring and boxes than to be present when forming and setting the boxes and conduit in the forms and hoping nothing moves or goes wrong when they pour it.

I agree that it would be easier to show up after the fact and do the work, but as far as conduit is concerned, you would really only need to be present for the setting of the boxes. You can find ext. rings with KO's and still run the conduit on the surface of the concrete after it's all done... or was it NM? Either way, same thing. Ext. ring w/ KOs.

Good food for thought, thanks.

Your welcome. I figured I was missing something about the job that no one else would have brought them up. There are many others on here that are much more knowledgeable than me. I just like the challenge of trying to solve a puzzle... and either I get checked and learn something ...or I contribute. Win, win in my mind. But there's also the reality of publicly making a wrong statement, which carries great risk. But I'll take that chance in exchange for the opportunity to either learn or contribute.

 

[4x4dually]

I agree that it would be easier to show up after the fact and do the work, but as far as conduit is concerned, you would really only need to be present for the setting of the boxes. You can find ext. rings with KO's and still run the conduit on the surface of the concrete after it's all done... or was it NM? Either way, same thing. Ext. ring w/ KOs.

I guess what scares me about the boxes is trying to find a mud ring that is the exact distance so it sits flush with the rock after the fur out. If I nail on shallow boxes after the fact, then I can adjust. .... Oooooorrrrr....I just tell the framers to put the studs the right way and wire it conventional......but then they can't just ramset the studs into the concrete and I'll have to listen to them wiss and moan....in broken spanglish. LMAO I'll be like NO HABLA.....boards! Put boards here!

 

[Jerramundi]

I guess what scares me about the boxes is trying to find a mud ring that is the exact distance so it sits flush with the rock after the fur out. If I nail on shallow boxes after the fact, then I can adjust.

It's true that mud/plaster rings would give you greater flexibility. They are cheaper and there is much wider range of available options.

I was just taught to never (although realistically sometimes you have to) max out a pipe and/or box. It's also code to plan for future expansion. I forget the exact code reference and wording, but it's in there.... and one of my first thoughts when reading your OP was box volume. If I were you, since you're still in the planning stages, I would do my best to ensure there's extra volume in the box and room in the conduits (if you're running conduit)... and the only way I can see to achieve that is a masonry box + ext. ring.

I feel like you should be able to choose a furring strip size + drywall and plan it to match an extension ring depth, you just have to ensure the box is set right... but yes, mud/plaster rings would give you greater flexibility... slight imperfections in the concrete might come up when you go to install the furring strips and drywall and flexibility is not a bad forethought. Again, primary concern from my perspective is future expansion.

 

[4x4dually]

It's true that mud/plaster rings would give you greater flexibility. They are cheaper and there is much wider range of available options.

I was just taught to never (although realistically sometimes you have to) max out a pipe and/or box. It's also code to plan for future expansion. I forget the exact code reference and wording, but it's in there.... and one of my first thoughts when reading your OP was box volume. If I were you, since you're still in the planning stages, I would do my best to ensure there's extra volume in the box and room in the conduits (if you're running conduit).

I feel like you should be able to choose a furring strip size + drywall and plan it to match an extension ring depth, you just have to ensure the box is set right... but yes, mud/plaster rings would give you greater flexibility. Again, primary concern from my perspective is future expansion.

Noted. Thanks for your input. I'll look into that. I will use 4 sq boxes even on single devices just for volume.

 

[Jerramundi]

Noted. Thanks for your input. I'll look into that. I will use 4 sq boxes even on single devices just for volume.

Do your box volume calculations. You'd be surprised how quickly 21cu gets eaten up. Seems like a lot, until it isn't.

 

[suemarkp]

Would 2x3's on edge still be possible to nailset to the wall? Even if not, they are stiffer and you could just anchor the top plate and bottom plate and one nail in the center of the 2x3 should keep it firmly against the wall (or just glue them if not). Then use 2 1/8 square boxes on the wall with a 3/4" mud ring. This gives you plenty of box volume, and you have space along the stud edge to run things vertically and still be 1 1/4" from the edge face of the stud. And if you need a 1x3 nailer on the wall, there is plenty of space between it and the finished surface.

 

[electrofelon]

It's also code to plan for future expansion. I forget the exact code reference and wording, but it's in there....

No it is not.

 

[Jerramundi]

No it is not.

Are you sure? Because I didn't just make that up for all the fun it would create for me, lol. I got it from somewhere.
Could it be in 110.12 ANSI/NECA 1-2010 Standard Practice of Good Workmanship...??
I would consider it good workmanship, best practice.

 

[readydave8]

2 x 4's set perpendicullar to wall is called a stud wall and would not need to be anchored to wall, it is a wall {as others have mentioned}

 

[infinity]

Are you sure? Because I didn't just make that up for all the fun it would create for me, lol. I got it from somewhere.
Could it be in 110.12 ANSI/NECA 1-2010 Standard Practice of Good Workmanship...??
I would consider it good workmanship, best practice.

Not in the NEC, in fact it says just the opposite:

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is the practical safeguarding of persons and property from hazards arising from the use of electricity. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.
(B) Adequacy. This Code contains provisions that are considered necessary for safety. Compliance therewith and proper maintenance result in an installation that is essentially free from hazard but not necessarily efficient, convenient, or adequate for good service or future expansion of electrical use.

 

[Jerramundi]

Not in the NEC, in fact it says just the opposite:

Interesting. I'd like to take a look at the ANSI standard.

I would be shocked if planning for future expansion wasn't explicitly part of the idea of good workmanship... and if it was in that ANSI standard, which is referenced by the informational note in 110.12, would it not be considered code? Or does it being in an informational note disqualify it as being defined as a "code requirement?"

 

[roger]

The term "good workmanship" is basically in the eyes of the beholder and pretty much unenforceable per the style manual

 

[Jerramundi]

The term "good workmanship" is basically in the eyes of the beholder and pretty much unenforceable per the style manual

Sad but true.

 

[Jerramundi]

The term "good workmanship" is basically in the eyes of the beholder and pretty much unenforceable per the style manual

Still, rather than turn the page on the idea, I would consider it a justice for all to plan for future expansion and be the hero of the day because once the drywall goes up, it's just too late, too late.

 

[Little Bill]

Still, rather than turn the page on the idea, I would consider it a justice for all to plan for future expansion and be the hero of the day because once the drywall goes up, it's just too late, too late.

You're free to do as you like concerning this but it is not a code requirement.

 

[Jerramundi]

You're free to do as you like concerning this but it is not a code requirement.

You make me sad.

 

[electrofelon]

You make me sad.

It is also not a code requirement that we make you happy

 

[Jerramundi]

It is also not a code requirement that we make you happy

No one asked you to or needs you to.
But I'll remember that the next time I wonder if its' worth my energy to sprinkle a little joy in my posts.

 

[ramsy]

I'm just not going to dump hundreds of extra dollars into my two 200A panels for the sake of some magic arc detection.

Panel flippers don't usually do crawl spaces, or repair inside-wiring issues.

Thats why AFCI's won't hold for flippers who don't repair existing-carbonized wiring, before it becomes charcoal-outlet bombs.

Residential-service electricians that do roll their truck without repacing the fuse box, know how outlet type and CAFCI breakers will trip when holding Neutral & EGC in opposite hands, and how carbonized wiring can trace the same high-Z path.

 

[Jerramundi]

Panel flippers don't usually do crawl spaces, or repair inside-wiring issues.
Thats why AFCI's won't hold for flippers who don't repair existing-carbonized wiring, before it becomes charcoal-outlet bombs.

Mostly true. I have to say I hate it when there's nice new EMT off a new panel, but it connects to some old cloth wiring on the 1st floor.

But at the same time, neither do all electricians. We're all limited by the HO's budget. Good luck with a panel bid that the customer is already hesitant on, and then coming back to them with the idea of a full re-wire, even if it's the right thing to do. If they don't want to pay, it's not happening.

But what I've learned is, you have to have some kind of document that the HO signs to acknowledge that you've informed them of a violation and they just didn't want to address it.