Halex Kwik-Klip ok for 334.30?

[emf10]

These are plastic standoffs that hold up to 5 nm cables. I'm using these to attach Romex to metal studs (single family dwelling). They are listed to comply with 300.4d, but will they also meet the requirements of 334.30? The packaging says "For positioning only" what exactly does that mean?

(334.30 - Nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall be secured by staples, cable ties, straps, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m (41/2 ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.) of every cabinet, box, or fitting. Flat cables shall not be stapled on edge.)

If not what is recommended to satisfy 334.30 when using metal studs? Tie wraps with a hole for a sheet metal screw? I would rather use some type of standoff though.

 

[allenwayne]

With 5 NM cables you would have a bundling violation.Awhile back we were doing an metal stud builder until they went in house and we used a really cheap stand off that while not sure of who made them they were unique in that.They were shaped like an elongated G with a hole on the bent end to secure them with and a click locking tab to secure the nm.When it was needed to run multiple cable assys. we back to backed them and never failed for bundling that way.

 

[infinity]

With 5 NM cables you would have a bundling violation..

If the supports are spread out every 4.5' how would this be bundling? Besides bundling is not a violation but may trigger derating issues.

 

[allenwayne]

Trevor by the letter of the code you are correct there would not be a bundling issue if 4.5 ft apart.But take a switch box say at 48 in top then secure the NM within required 12 ins. and lets say a 8 ft top plate then not required since the top plate would constitute secured but for neatness there would be a second means of support then there would be more than 9 current carrying conductors for more than 24 ins.That would be bundling or am I missing something.

 

[infinity]

Trevor by the letter of the code you are correct there would not be a bundling issue if 4.5 ft apart.But take a switch box say at 48 in top then secure the NM within required 12 ins. and lets say a 8 ft top plate then not required since the top plate would constitute secured but for neatness there would be a second means of support then there would be more than 9 current carrying conductors for more than 24 ins.That would be bundling or am I missing something.

Bundling is a subjective thing. IMO if the cables are simply hanging against the stud with air around them they are not bundled. Bundling for more than 24" would IMO require them to be bundled together. If they can be arranged so that there is an air space around them than derating would not apply. I know that there are different opinions on this. IMO stacker type supports allow for enough space between the cables to not require derating although I do believe that a note on the stacker packaging mentions that after X number of cables derating may apply.

 

[LarryFine]

The packaging says "For positioning only" what exactly does that mean?

I take it to mean that they don't qualify as a means of 'securing' cables, as in the "within-X-inches" of a box, but may qualify as a means of 'supporting' cables, as mentioned in 334.30(A).

 

[bphgravity]

A lot of contractors here use these and other brands of standoffs. Some "clamp" the cable others don't. For the ones that don't the cable can be cable tied to the standoff so both supporting and securing is achieved.