NM above ceiling in multifamily

Status
Not open for further replies.
ryan_618 said:
To me, this definition is VERY clear:
Click to expand...

Your original post mentioned "Gift Shop", "Banquet Hall", "Hotel", "Kitchen", "Corridors" and "Common Areas". How many dwellings have you ever seen or been in that have a "Gift Shop" or a "Banquet Hall"? :-? How many dwellings have you ever been in that have a "Hotel"? :-?

Have you ever been in a building with more than one use or occupancy classification? Of course you have. :smile:

I routinely go into buildings with two or more uses...and they are called Mixed Occupancies. Each portion of a Mixed Occupancy building is classified as to its use....that classification sets up the wiring methods permitted.

In this "Multi-family dwelling" of yours, when I am in the "Banquet Hall", am I in dwelling "A", dwelling "B" or "C". I must be in all three at once...How can I be solely in all three at once? :D
 
wbalsam1 said:
In this "Multi-family dwelling" of yours, when I am in the "Banquet Hall", am I in dwelling "A", dwelling "B" or "C". I must be in all three at once...How can I be solely in all three at once? :D
Click to expand...

I'm not in all three at once, I am in the multifamily dwelling. The rule is regarding multifamily dwellings. No more, no less. I think you are over analyzing it.
 
ryan_618 said:
I KNOW!!! WOW!!!
Click to expand...
Multi-family dwelling:
chicago297x444.jpg


I love threads like this...

Somewhere along the line, common sense has to kick into gear and trump Charlie's rules, doesn't it? I'm talking about real world practice, not at all insinuating that the loophole should not be closed in the NEC. It strikes me that in general creating better linkages with other codes (IBC and so on) for these sorts of issues is an area worthy of focus in 2011.
 
Last edited:
ryan_618 said:
I'm not in all three at once, I am in the multifamily dwelling. The rule is regarding multifamily dwellings. No more, no less. I think you are over analyzing it.
Click to expand...

Here's the scenario: A permit applicant comes in to my office and hands me the plans and specs for a mutli-family dwelling. 3 dwelling units, a 150 seat restaurant and banquet hall and a gift shop. I go over to my boss and I tell him its a multi-family dwelling building and not to over analyze the accessory use 150 seat assembly space and the gift shop business enterprise. It's not a mixed use building, boss, honest. :D
 
Ryan
What do you call a building that has mixed use or multiuse portions?
If there are multiple dwelling units in a building, and the first floor has a healthcare facility, would you permit it to be wired in NM Cable?
It would seem that you are leaning in that direction, based on your comments.

I understand, based on the NEC definition what you are trying to state, but construction and the wiring of buildings is not an island unto the NEC. There are other codes and standards we may need to be aware of. I know you understand this.
 
Pierre,

In your example of a building, it's not what Ryan would say, it's what would

the Court say. That definition is short and sweet, but for now it is the Law

reguarding Electrical installations. Yes-No ?
 
wbalsam1 said:
Here's the scenario: A permit applicant comes in to my office and hands me the plans and specs for a mutli-family dwelling. 3 dwelling units, a 150 seat restaurant and banquet hall and a gift shop. I go over to my boss and I tell him its a multi-family dwelling building and not to over analyze the accessory use 150 seat assembly space and the gift shop business enterprise. It's not a mixed use building, boss, honest. :D
Click to expand...
For the purposes of the IBC, yes, it is a multi use building. It may have accesory uses, incidental uses and seperatated or nonseperated uses. But that is no more relevenant than the type of construction, allowable height and area, means of egress system, requirements for special inspection, importance factor, or any other IBC related item. The fact of the matter is, the defined terms in Article 100 and the provisions of Article 334 allow it.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Ryan
What do you call a building that has mixed use or multiuse portions?
If there are multiple dwelling units in a building, and the first floor has a healthcare facility, would you permit it to be wired in NM Cable?
Click to expand...
Of course I would not allow it...chapter 5 modifies the requirements and permsissions of chapter 3, per 90.3. :)
 
Ryan
I am not contesting you, but I have a question.
Based on this thread, would you permit NM wiring in the other occupancies (ball room, etc...) basing my question that you think the NEC definition of dwelling, multifamily encompasses those portions of the building?
 
ryan_618 said:
For the purposes of the IBC, yes, it is a multi use building. ... But that is no more relevenant than ..... any other IBC related item.
Click to expand...

No matter how much anyone tends to aggrandize electrical wiring in a building, the fact remains that wiring is but a system within a building; a small -albeit- important part, but only a component of the much bigger picture, i.e., a building.
So it is, then, that the building code will take precedence over any standards referenced therein. The building code is more stringent than the electrical standard. Therefore definitions in the building code are more stringent than definitions within the electrical standard referenced within.
The IBC references the NEC in Chapter 27. If a code classifies a building as a certain type, it is relevant.
To take the position that the tiny little definition of multi-family dwelling in the NEC takes precedence over mixed use building, borders on either: 1), an over-emphasized arrogance attributed to the electrical standard itself; 2), a desperate attempt to torture reasoning into a more comfortable perspective; or 3), an allegiance too strong with the notion that the electrical "code" -really a reference standard- is more stringent than the Code that references it. :smile:

ryan_618 said:
The fact of the matter is, the defined terms in Article 100 and the provisions of Article 334 allow it.
Click to expand...

This would be true for the parts of the building use that are deemed dwelling use, providing all other parts of the building code and electrical standard are adhered to.
 
Perhaps the NM-B lobby is smarter than we think , at least as far as the NEC is concerned.
 
I see what ryan_618 is saying. Looking at the NEC definition of a multifamily dwelling it does clearly state that it classifies the entire buliding as such. But, It sure seems like they may have just forgot to put in the "solely" part of it.

But, I agree with wbalsam1 that there are other codes that would re-classify this building as multi-use & require the proper seperation of each.

If this was the case then the entire building should be wired according to "residential" rules, ie outlet spacing, etc. & any "commercial" rules would'nt apply. I just dont see that flying by anything but a cuckoo bird.

I think we should just mark this one as a typo & submit a change to fix it.
 
smithacetech said:
I see what ryan_618 is saying. Looking at the NEC definition of a multifamily dwelling it does clearly state that it classifies the entire buliding as such. But, It sure seems like they may have just forgot to put in the "solely" part of it.
Click to expand...

I fail to see where the word "entire" is used. I see the word "more" used but not "entire".

smithacetech said:
But, I agree with wbalsam1 that there are other codes that would re-classify this building as multi-use & require the proper seperation of each.
Click to expand...

Proper separation by required fire-resistance ratings require certain wiring methods. The requirement for FRR's to begin with should make it clear there are mixed uses.

smithacetech said:
If this was the case then the entire building should be wired according to "residential" rules, ie outlet spacing, etc. & any "commercial" rules would'nt apply. I just dont see that flying by anything but a cuckoo bird.
Click to expand...

There's that word "entire" again. How could you wire an entire building in "residential" methods that may also contain areas subject to commercial provisions of the NEC?

smithacetech said:
I think we should just mark this one as a typo & submit a change to fix it.
Click to expand...

The NEC certainly could use more clarity. Precision of language is very important when interpreting the core intention of provisions contained within standards. :smile:
 
OK it doesnt say the words "entire" building, (nor "more"), but it clearly does not have the word "soley". As stated in the preceding definitions.
 
Check the permit. Most likley says "Commercial". Problem solved. No romex above droped ceiling. No matter what you call a dwelling unit.
 
Cavie said:
Check the permit. Most likley says "Commercial". Problem solved. No romex above droped ceiling. No matter what you call a dwelling unit.
Click to expand...

For the purposes of this discussion, "commercial" is not defined in the NEC.
 
peter d said:
For the purposes of this discussion, "commercial" is not defined in the NEC.
Click to expand...

Does this mean that Art 511 Commercial Garages is really Article 511 Residential Multifamily Dwelling Garages in disguise and romex is allowed in a mixed use Multifamily dwelling/commercial garage for the entire building? :D :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top