For the romex haters

[Jim W in Tampa]

Looks mostly to be yellow so unless they used 15 amp breakers i dought it got derated. Unlike residential the loads are likely heavily used. Curious just what loads were on the romex. Probably voltage drop problems too.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

They can't tag because of ugly. I am surprised that nm would be allowed in a store of this size. Hate to think what happens in a fire with people trying to breath while getting out.
On bright side if Bob was there chances are was to do work. That usually means customer didn't like the first guy.

While I am not a fan of NM, it would be a very very rare installation where the toxic fumes from the NM on any other building material would have any where near the volume of toxic smoke from the building contents and furnishings.

 

[iwire]

If this was a store of any decent size (by todays' standards), I'd expect to see a lot more 10 and 8. Instead, I see about 50% 12, 40% 14 and 10% 10.

It is a large store, say 300' W x 200' deep on the sales floor.

What size breaker you think they're using on all that 14?

None, if the plans where followed any of the 14 used on the job will have a 4 amp fuse. 14 is used for the line voltage control circuits from the refrigeration racks.

The 12s will be breakered at 20 but in reality could be moved down to 5 or 10 amps as the large number of circuits run a just a few fans or lights in refrigerated cases.

The engineering is good, lots of dedicated circuits with very little load each. That said it still does not excuse the bundling by the EC.

I can't imagine a grocery store built without plans and specs. Could this travesty have been prevented at plan revue by the AHJ?

The electrical plans alone usually run 20 to 24 sheets, there are specs but at the same time NM is (or was) allowed by the plans and specs.

 

[augie47]

Bob, Is this in area area that will reveive an inspection ?
If so, will it side by ?

 

[iwire]

While it would be a very very rare installation where the toxic fumes from the NM on any other building material would have any where near the volume of toxic smoke from the building contents and furnishings.

You bet, it is a supper market with all it's plastics, cleaning products, paper goods etc. The customers have a lot more to worry about then the toxic fumes from NM.

It is also one story with many exits. :smile:

 

[iwire]

Bob, Is this in area area that will reveive an inspection ?
If so, will it side by ?

It is and it did.

 

[augie47]

sighhh:-? frustrating for us, I'm sure more so for you

 

[Karl H]

If that becomes a common wiring method. I'm going to admit defeat,
the Hacks have won, bronze my side cutters,and call it a career.

 

[wawireguy]

In a cable tray like that are there any securing requirments? Guess I'm curious about using a wiring method that requires securing in a cable tray?

 

[hillbilly]

In a cable tray like that are there any securing requirments? Guess I'm curious about using a wiring method that requires securing in a cable tray?

I can't find any exceptions for not securing that Romex per 334.30
I'd be interested if there was.

steve

 

[raider1]

Bob, what type of construction was this building permitted as?

From what I could see in the picture it appears more like a type IIB building (non-combustable construction) than a type III or type V (combustable construction).

Chris

 

[iwire]

Bob, what type of construction was this building permitted as?

From what I could see in the picture it appears more like a type IIB building (non-combustable construction) than a type III or type V (combustable construction).

Chris

It could have been a wooden structure, the use of steel was a design decision and not a code requirement.

 

[raider1]

It could have been a wooden structure, the use of steel was a design decision and not a code requirement.

I agree, that the building codes would probably permit this building to be of type III or V construction.

The question I have is if the building COULD have been built as a type III or V but the designer choose to build it as a type II and the construction documents reflect that this building is designed as a type II would NM cable still be permitted?

If the answer is yes, then how do we determine if the building could be built as a Type III, IV or V construction?

Chris

 

[iwire]

The question I have is if the building COULD have been built as a type III or V but the designer choose to build it as a type II and the construction documents reflect that this building is designed as a type II would NM cable still be permitted?

IMO the NEC says yes, regardless of what the documents say.

If the answer is yes, then how do we determine if the building could be built as a Type III, IV or V construction?

I don't know, that does not seem to be a concern of the CMP.

 

[raider1]

The problem with this is that the building codes do not require anything to be built of a specific type of construction. The decision of what type of construction to use is left up to the designer. Depending on the design I could build about any building out of type III or V construction using firewalls, area separation walls, sprinklers etc....

So it is almost impossible for someone to determine IF a building could be built out of Type III, IV or V construction.

IMHO if the building construction documents show that the design of the building is Type I or Type II then that is the construction type and NM cable would not be permitted.

I would hope that the designer and the electrcial engineer would get together and make a determination as to what type of wiring methods to use for the building design.

Chris

 

[iwire]

IMHO if the building construction documents show that the design of the building is Type I or Type II then that is the construction type and NM cable would not be permitted.

The NEC does not seem to back that view up.

There is no mention of construction documents only 'what could be'. Kind of odd I agree.

 

[raider1]

The NEC does not seem to back that view up.

There is no mention of construction documents only 'what could be'. Kind of odd I agree.

I agree the NEC is does not really correlate well with how building types are determined in the building codes. If someone hasn't already sent in a code change on this I think I will for the 2014 NEC.

As far as the building codes go the only way to know what the building type is, is to look at the construction documents. The designer not the code is the driving factor in building types.

One other thing about the pictures, how are they going to comply with the requirement to conceal the NM cable within walls, floors and ceilings with a 15 minute finish rating? Also are there going to be any suspended ceilings?

Chris

 

[SEO]

Also are there going to be any suspended ceilings?

Chris

Very good point Chris but do you think that the inspector that approved this would even know or care if nm cable were installed above a suspended ceiling that is would be a violation?

 

[iwire]

One other thing about the pictures, how are they going to comply with the requirement to conceal the NM cable within walls, floors and ceilings with a 15 minute finish rating? Also are there going to be any suspended ceilings?

These pictures are older, I took them in Aug of 2004, so the permit would have been taken on the 2002 or even the 1999. It is in CT and I do not know when CT adopted the 2002 NEC. :smile:

 

[raider1]

Very good point Chris but do you think that the inspector that approved this would even know or care if nm cable were installed above a suspended ceiling that is would be a violation?

No, if what we see in the pictures have been inspected I doubt that the inspector would care if there was NM cable above a suspended ceiling.

Chris