Can this box be surface mounted?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bjp_ne_elec

Senior Member
Location
Southern NH
Looking for a non-metallic box that can be legally surface mounted, and meet 314.43.


The Allied Molded Products part number that I have is 9343-NK - it will be listed out at this link - but I can't find "installation instructions":

http://www.alliedmoulded.com/outlet_square.cfm

You can see the recessed spots to the left of the 4" square that's shown at the top left hand side of the link - this is the one I actually have in the truck. An email to Allied two days ago, and no response.

It appears these raised rings that are in there would "prevent contact between the conductors in the box and the supporting screws". What do you guys think?
 
Last edited:
Yes i think it meets it.What exactly are you going to use it for ?And what wiring method ?While the box is ok it might not be ok for romex to be exsposed going into it.
 
Jim W in Tampa said:
Yes i think it meets it.What exactly are you going to use it for ?And what wiring method ?While the box is ok it might not be ok for romex to be exsposed going into it.
Click to expand...

Maybe he has in mind doing something like this attached picture.

RMCandnonmattelicbox.jpg
 
The application is using NM-B and one will be a used for a JB, while the other box will have a keyless porcelin light socket mounted to it with a 4" square to round non-metallic ring - up in the rafters of the garage. It's due to no EGC in existing Romex. It's up in the trusses of the garage - do you interpret 334.15 to indicate that NM must be run in conduit in this scenario? I'm asking, but I would think if it's up in the rafters, then it would be not "subject to damage". I would take this to mean you could run a chunk of NM up the wall in a garage, unless it was in conduit.



Thanks,

Brett
 
Last edited:
If it is in the attic space above the garage why not just mount the junction to the side of the rafter using the nails?
If you have access to the attic of the garage why not mount a round nail on box to the side of the joist?
 
bjp_ne_elec said:
The application is using NM-B and one will be a used for a JB, while the other box will have a keyless porcelin light socket mounted to it with a 4" square to round non-metallic ring - up in the rafters of the garage. It's due to no EGC in existing Romex. It's up in the trusses of the garage - do you interpret 334.15 to indicate that NM must be run in conduit in this scenario? I'm asking, but I would think if it's up in the rafters, then it would be not "subject to damage". I would take this to mean you could run a chunk of NM up the wall in a garage, unless it was in conduit.



Thanks,

Brett
Click to expand...

Just buy a round nail on and use a standard plastic nail on box.Your making a simple job hard by adding p rings.As to subject to damage is up to the ahj.In attic i have never had a problem over this.
 
Jim W in Tampa - it's really not in an attic - the garage is in a house built in thee 50's - and the ceiling and the walls are not sheetrocked - bare studs. I think that is what jwelectric is having an issue with.

Jwelectric - there is a narrow piece of plywood, backed by 2" x 4"'s - and then the metal ocatgon box is mounted on the underside of that. And thinking about it, I'm really not sure why. But I agree, if the ceiling joists were explosed, I'd definitely go with the nail-on.

Now jwelectric - on the original installation, the electrician ran NM down the sides of the garage door to feed the coach lights - exposed on the surface of the four (4) 2" x 4"'s that are there to hold up the header. I would assume this would be a case where it would be considered "exposed work" - and a new install would require conduit - do you agree?

Thanks,

Brett
 
Last edited:
Sounds like your real problem is not the box but the romex itself is exsposed.Anything going down a wall i would sleeve in emt or pvc,bell box sounds like better way to go on the wall.PVC plastic ones with slip fit are easy and fast.
 
bjp_ne_elec said:
Jim W in Tampa - it's really not in an attic - the garage is in a house built in thee 50's - and the ceiling and the walls are not sheetrocked - bare studs. I think that is what jwelectric is having an issue with. Thanks, Brett
Click to expand...
If it is open then use a regular nail on box


bjp_ne_elec said:
Jwelectric - there is a narrow piece of plywood, backed by 2" x 4"'s - and then the metal ocatgon box is mounted on the underside of that. And thinking about it, I'm really not sure why. But I agree, if the ceiling joists were explosed, I'd definitely go with the nail-on. Thanks, Brett
Click to expand...
Here is where I am getting confused.
?and the ceiling and the walls are not sheetrocked - bare studs.? And ?if the ceiling joists were explosed,?
Which is it?
Is this an inch and a half strip of plywood nailed on the edge of the 2 X 4? If so then a regular nail on box would still work.
If the ceiling is covered with this plywood and you can not see the joist then cut a hole in the plywood next to a joist and use a nail on box.

bjp_ne_elec said:
Now jwelectric - on the original installation, the electrician ran NM down the sides of the garage door to feed the coach lights - exposed on the surface of the four (4) 2" x 4"'s that are there to hold up the header. I would assume this would be a case where it would be considered "exposed work" - and a new install would require conduit - do you agree? Thanks, Brett
Click to expand...
If the cable is set back 1 ? inches from the front edge of the 2 X 4 then it is okay like it is.
 
I'm having kind of a hard time picturing the predicament in the ceiling too. I've been saying that a lot lately. :D

I'm guessing the upper area is used for storage, which made the idea of cutting in a box unpalatable for the original installer (because of a potential for damage from above?). The original electrician installed an octagonal box screwed to the underside of the ceiling of the garage space...?

At any rate, as long as the romex is protected from physical damage by following the building finish or running boards as mentioned in 334.15(A), then it can be run exposed. This is subject to the interpretation the AHJ, as to when 334.15(B) kicks in to require conduit sleeving.

IMO, romex can run directly into a box nailed to a stud, without any additional protection if it closely follows the stud.
 
The NM that's run down each side of the garage doors (for coach lights) is run on the surface of the group of four (4) studs that are all nailed together supporting the garage door header. This was the original installation - it's not down the side of the stud - it's right on the front surface - does that make sense. As there 2" x 4"'s are all nailed together, there is no space between them. This is why the NM is right on the front part of these support studs, and then the NM comes down to about 6', and exits out a hole to the coach light - this is duplicated on each side for the garage door.

Now as it's all solid studding between the garage door and the front door leading in to the garage, the original NM is run exposed on the front face of the studs - but I'm hoping this doesn't have to be replaced. So with that, would NM being run down to a 6' height be considered - "subject to damage"? Not sure if this matters, but it's sitting back in somewhat protected by the runners of the garage door. I'm not trying to test the code, but I could understand if the NM was at a height were the car might hit it, but what do they figure, someones going to be taking swings that the walls.

As far as the octagon box - the majority of the garage ceiling is open - except for a piece of plywood that is close to the garage door opener. On the underside of the plywood is the receptacle that the garage door opener is plugged in to. Then about a foot from that is the octagon box that has a keyless light socket hanging from it - and it's loaded with four NM cables coming in to it - two (2) 14/2 and two 14/3 (3-ways). This is the box I'm trying to replace with a non-metallic, as I'm trying to extend one additional light socket out of this box - and as you can see, I'm concerned for box fill.

Hope this makes it somewhat more clearer. Wish I had taken pics.

Thanks,
Brett
 
The NM going to the coach lights on each side of the garage door will need to be protected.

The box for the keyless can be moved to the attic space and new cable installed to each new keyless.
 
When you guys say "sleeve it" or "protect it" - am I correct in assuming this does not have to be a continuous piece of PVC?

jwelectric - keep in mind that the "old" NM does not have a ground. So I can extend the circuit, as long as I keep it all in non-metallic boxes - is that correct?

Thanks,

Brett
 
bjp_ne_elec said:
When you guys say "sleeve it" or "protect it" - am I correct in assuming this does not have to be a continuous piece of PVC?

jwelectric - keep in mind that the "old" NM does not have a ground. So I can extend the circuit, as long as I keep it all in non-metallic boxes - is that correct?

Thanks,

Brett
Click to expand...

Just the part of the cable that is to be protected is required to be in the raceway.

When I replace a fixture in an old house I find that the conductors are cooked in the box so I will set a junction box above the ceiling in the attic and install new wire to the fixture.
With this being a keyless I would bet that the conductors are cooked and brittle and you will have a hard time working with them.
Set a box above the existing keyless and install new wires to the new fixture.

Edited to add;

The new fixture might require that the supply conductors be rated at 90 degrees so you would need to set the junction box in order to install 90 degree conductors. See 334.112

Edited to add;

One more thing that might be of interest to you, the race is starting so I got to go.
 
Last edited:
jw - sounds good - but again, just to be sure - the existing NM has no ground. I just want to make sure I don't have to re-wire the whole garage. If I understand the NEC correctly - if I keep the new part of the circuit extension in NM - and I'm not trying to add a grounded receptacle, then would you agree this extension is not a code violation? You talk about what you normally do, but is this scenario used if you didn't have an EGC in the NM that you're setting the JB for?

I'll check for your reply once the race is over.

Thanks

Brett
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top