Location of under cabinet lights

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stevenfyeager

Senior Member
Location
United States, Indiana
Occupation
electrical contractor
I always install under cabinet lights in the back against the wall to conceal the Romex wire. But the light instructions usually say to mount in the front for best lighting results. But with exposed wire in that case, wouldn't that violate protecting wiring from damage? Thank you.
 
I don't see a risk of damage to the wires. It is not as though something could fall onto them. Their location of bottom of cabinet should be protection enough. That said, mine are towards the back of the cabinet. But that is because I don't want to see the fixture itself.
 
Given that most undercounter lighting is headed toward LED anyway, the wiring is likely to be low voltage so no exposed Romeo.
 
What's going to damage it under a cabinet? If romex under a cabinet is subject to damage, you have a lot bigger problems on your hands!
 
peter d said:
What's going to damage it under a cabinet? If romex under a cabinet is subject to damage, you have a lot bigger problems on your hands!
Click to expand...

We have to protect it here, Tim. I'd equate it to running it surface mounted on a sheetrocked ceiling. Not really subject to physical damage, but still needs to be protected. :happyyes:
 
MNSparky said:
We have to protect it here, Tim. I'd equate it to running it surface mounted on a sheetrocked ceiling. Not really subject to physical damage, but still needs to be protected. :happyyes:
Click to expand...
AHJ's gone wild, a new series of videos...

What is the source of damage, even on a 8 or 9 foot ceiling? This should totally be design issue and not something enforced as possible damage.

Enclosed cables in a wall are subject to damage by anything that is capable of damaging the wall - so how far does the amount of protection need to go?
 
MNSparky said:
We have to protect it here, Tim. I'd equate it to running it surface mounted on a sheetrocked ceiling. Not really subject to physical damage, but still needs to be protected.
Click to expand...
Physical location can by itself provide protection from damage.

 
MNSparky said:
We have to protect it here, Tim. I'd equate it to running it surface mounted on a sheetrocked ceiling. Not really subject to physical damage, but still needs to be protected. :happyyes:
Click to expand...

Chris, that seems very unreasonable to me. Do you have to protect romex in an unfinished basement too? :huh:
 
peter d said:
Chris, that seems very unreasonable to me. Do you have to protect romex in an unfinished basement too? :huh:
Click to expand...

We have to protect it if it's fastened to the bottom of the joists, either in pipe or with running boards. If we drill the joists we do not need to protect it. The thought behind that is if someone would sheetrock the ceiling one day, the wires need to be protected against someone just sheetrocking over them. Is it not that way everywhere else? It's a very uniform thing here, not just one or two particular AHJs.
 
kwired said:
AHJ's gone wild, a new series of videos...

What is the source of damage, even on a 8 or 9 foot ceiling? This should totally be design issue and not something enforced as possible damage.

Enclosed cables in a wall are subject to damage by anything that is capable of damaging the wall - so how far does the amount of protection need to go?
Click to expand...


I've wondered these questions myself. Surface mounted romex is a big no-no here. Even the home inspectors call it out. As I said in my last post, it's a very uniform rule.

Can you all really just staple romex up to the sheetrock in a garage or something?
 
I think the original question is not at all similar to the "ceilings and sheetrock" discussion. Nobody is going to install sheetrock on the bottom face of a kitchen cabinet. Nobody is going to reach into a kitchen cabinet and drill downwards in order to install something inside the cabinet. I reiterate my view that the location of the wires (i.e., stapled to the underside of the cabinet) is sufficient to protect them from damage.
 
charlie b said:
I think the original question is not at all similar to the "ceilings and sheetrock" discussion. Nobody is going to install sheetrock on the bottom face of a kitchen cabinet. Nobody is going to reach into a kitchen cabinet and drill downwards in order to install something inside the cabinet. I reiterate my view that the location of the wires (i.e., stapled to the underside of the cabinet) is sufficient to protect them from damage.
Click to expand...

I agree that the location under the cabinet is unlikely to be subject to physical damage. I was just stating that in my area it would be expected to be protected. If I were to mount the undercabinet lights all the way forward, I would sleeve the romex in wiremold, and have done so in the past. If I left it exposed, I would almost surely fail the inspection.
 
MNSparky said:
We have to protect it here, Tim. I'd equate it to running it surface mounted on a sheetrocked ceiling. Not really subject to physical damage, but still needs to be protected. :happyyes:
Click to expand...

Chris,

The inspectors will red flag the Undercabinet wiring installation if we don't provide physical protection of the exposed Romex wire.

Tony
 
MNSparky said:
I've wondered these questions myself. Surface mounted romex is a big no-no here. Even the home inspectors call it out. As I said in my last post, it's a very uniform rule.

Can you all really just staple romex up to the sheetrock in a garage or something?
Click to expand...
I know there is a lot of jurisdictions with some messed up opinions of what needs physical protection. But if you go on what NEC alone says why can't you staple NM cable to the surface in dwellings or dwelling accessory buildings if there is no apparent reason for physical abuse? We can have exposed glass lamps on the ceiling and not require any physical protection for those but a little NM cable is a problem? Does that make any sense? I don't think so.


Get outside of dwellings and dwelling accessory buildings and it usually must be behind at least a 15 minute finish - so you aren't running it on the surface but not for physical protection reasons.

334.15(B) starts off with "Cable shall be protected from physical damage where necessary" That "where necessary" is what is being over interpreted, in some places to the point you don't run exposed NM cable at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top