Nail Protection Plates

[infinity]

Is this installation code compliant where the cable is less than 1.25" from the edge of the stud?

If I run the cable on the side of the stud a space of 1.25" must be maintained or protection is required. Would the same 1.25" apply to the conductor behind the nail plate? What does it mean that it is required "to cover the area of the wiring"?

300.4(A) Cables and Raceways Through Wood Members.
(1) Bored Holes. In both exposed and concealed locations, where a cable- or raceway-type wiring method is installed through bored holes in joists, rafters, or wood members, holes shall be bored so that the edge of the hole is not less than 32 mm (1 1 ∕ 4 in.) from the nearest edge of the wood member. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by screws or nails by a steel plate(s) or bushing(s), at least 1.6 mm ( 1 ∕ 16 in.) thick, and of appropriate length and width installed to cover the area of the wiring.

 

[xformer]

This looks ok to me. As long as the nail plates are steel. The purpose for the rule is to protect the drywall installer and to keep them from driving sheetrock screws into the romex.

 

[infinity]

This looks ok to me. As long as the nail plates are steel. The purpose for the rule is to protect the drywall installer and to keep them from driving sheetrock screws into the romex.

I've used these as depicted in the photo but my question is why isn't the protection required to extend 1.25" past the edge of the stud? If that cable is run vertically 1/2" from the face of the stud protection is required not different than what shown with the hole.

 

[xformer]

I've used these as depicted in the photo but my question is why isn't the protection required to extend 1.25" past the edge of the stud? If that cable is run vertically 1/2" from the face of the stud protection is required not different than what shown with the hole.

IMHO... Generally the building process would not require it. Usually after the Cable gets installed, as you know the covering goes on. Also the normal height the cable is ran does not pose a threat normally. I understand the question, and perhaps it should run 1.25 inches past the stud. perhaps the thought pattern is most people will mount items in a stud or in more of a center portion of the stud space. Asking for that 1.25" protection would naturally increase cost.

 

[Fred B]

Is this installation code compliant where the cable is less than 1.25" from the edge of the stud?

If I run the cable on the side of the stud a space of 1.25" must be maintained or protection is required. Would the same 1.25" apply to the conductor behind the nail plate? What does it mean that it is required "to cover the area of the wiring"?

Looks good I'll often offset the whole on a 2x4 especially on remodel with only one side open, it's hard to get the required setback when using a whole adequate for more than one wire.

I've used these as depicted in the photo but my question is why isn't the protection required to extend 1.25" past the edge of the stud? If that cable is run vertically 1/2" from the face of the stud protection is required not different than what shown with the hole.

The plate design would allow you to measure at an angle from the edge of plate to edge of hole and should meet the 1.25" requirements. The 1.25" if unprotected would be measured straight on from edge of 2x? To closest point of hole. And as @xformer has indicated the primary offender of hiting the wire would be the sheetrocker, and it would be highly unlikely that they would be driving a screw in at such an extreme angle, or off/away from the stud.
I'll put the plates on even if the min depth can be maintained when in vicinity of cabinet installation, those guys will use longer screws that would go well beyond those used by sheet rockers.

 

[LarryFine]

I've used these as depicted in the photo but my question is why isn't the protection required to extend 1.25" past the edge of the stud? If that cable is run vertically 1/2" from the face of the stud protection is required not different than what shown with the hole.

Because the measurement is of depth, not width. If it was, we'd have to space cables 1.5" away from studs.

 

[infinity]

Because the measurement is of depth, not width. If it was, we'd have to space cables 1.5" away from studs.

Sorry Larry but you lost me. If the cable is run vertically then any portion that is less that 1.25" from the face of the stud requires protection from being penetrated by nails or screws. The cables in the hole would certain meet that criterion.

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

You don’t have extend past the side of the stud.

If they are run on the side of the stud closer than 1.25” depth, you’d have to protect them in some way.

In that scenario, I guess you’d have to hang the nail plate over far enough to cover the wire, which would be goofy as all get out, but not 1.25”. That’s a depth requirement, not width.

 

[infinity]

In that scenario, I guess you’d have to hang the nail plate over far enough to cover the wire, which would be goofy as all get out, but not 1.25”. That’s a depth requirement, not width.

Isn't the NM cable in the photo less than 1.25" from the face of the stud?

 

[wwhitney]

Standard practice seems to only require the plate to be as wide as the stud. I agree at first glance it seems a little odd. My thoughts:

NM Cable through bored hole at inadequate set back, no protection: any screw through stud at that height will hit wire.
Vertical NM cable on side of stud at inadequate set back, no protection: any screw miss on that side of stud will hit wire.
NM Cable through bored hole at inadequate set back, 1.5" wide protection plate: a screw can hit the wire only if it's at the right height and it's a miss.

So the narrow plate reduces the chance of a screw hit because both factors would have to be against you. I guess that's a low enough probability?

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

Isn't the NM cable in the photo less than 1.25" from the face of the stud?

Yea but you only have to cover it over the stud, because that is the only place, for all practical matters, thatsomeone wouldbe driving a screw.

I see what you’re saying now: what if someone were to install, say a drywall anchor or molly screw just to the side of the stud at some late date.

I could see how that could be a possible issue, but it’s not really addressed in the code.

I guess we can’t make a house completely homeowner proof.

 

[Greentagger]

Keep in mind it is not solely the position of the cable but the edge of the hole that is bored. If the edge of the hole is within an 1 1/4” a nail guard is required. 300.4A(1)(2).

 

[infinity]

Yea but you only have to cover it over the stud, because that is the only place, for all practical matters, thatsomeone wouldbe driving a screw.

I see what you’re saying now: what if someone were to install, say a drywall anchor or molly screw just to the side of the stud at some late date.

I could see how that could be a possible issue, but it’s not really addressed in the code.

I guess we can’t make a house completely homeowner proof.

There are basically two requirements one is that the bored hole be 1.25" or greater from the face of the stud and two that the cable run along the side of the stud must either be 1.25" back from the face or it must physically be 1.25" laterally away from the stud. All three methods attempt to ensure that someone driving a nail into the stud or just missing the stud with the nail will not damage the cable. My question relates more to the second part, if a vertical cable needs to be either 1.25" back from the face or 1.25" laterally away from the stud so that a nail missing the stud won't damage it why would it be permitted to be right at the edge of the nail protection plate?

 

[electrofelon]

I see what you mean, the logic is not really consistent between those two rules. But I don't see it being required in the wording that the nail plate overhang the stud. 300.4(A) is about the stud itself and the hole thru it, nothing else.

 

[infinity]

I see what you mean, the logic is not really consistent between those two rules. But I don't see it being required in the wording that the nail plate overhang the stud. 300.4(A) is about the stud itself and the hole thru it, nothing else.

Yes I agree because that's the way that it's written.

 

[LarryFine]

There are basically two requirements . . . and two that the cable run along the side of the stud must either be 1.25" back from the face or it must physically be 1.25" laterally away from the stud.

I'm less than sure the rules actually state that part.

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

I would say the language “where nails or screws are likely to penetrate” would be the reason why we are only required to install them over the stud.

Just my opinion.

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

I don’t see where it says the cable must be laterally away 1.25”.

 

[acin]

Garage door tracks are installed with 1/4 inch x3 lags with an impactor . Ill bet they could go right through the 1/16 plate

 

[retirede]

Garage door tracks are installed with 1/4 inch x3 lags with an impactor . Ill bet they could go right through the 1/16 plate

Lag bolts are not designed to penetrate steel plates. Not saying it can’t happen. A 300 pound gorilla leaning on the impact could do it, but an installer with any experience would realize something was wrong before penetrating a nail plate.