NM Cable on Beam

[Dennis Alwon]

My son is taking an online class and this picture was sent to him to find the violations. He didn't think there were any violations except for maybe bending radius. I have to agree but I don't think the bending radius is an issue. Anything we missed?

 

[kwired]

I don't think any problem with bending radius. Exposed to physical damage is subjective.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I don't think any problem with bending radius. Exposed to physical damage is subjective.

We talked about that but it seems if it is allowed to be run exposed then this should be allowed. If it gets rejected then when would nm not be subject to damage. I think that is what he wants as an answer but I would argue it.... Of course I would have never run nm like that anyway

 

[kwired]

We talked about that but it seems if it is allowed to be run exposed then this should be allowed. If it gets rejected then when would nm not be subject to damage. I think that is what he wants as an answer but I would argue it.... Of course I would have never run nm like that anyway

I wouldn't ordinarily run like that either, but if I were inspecting it, would let it go.

 

[gadfly56]

We talked about that but it seems if it is allowed to be run exposed then this should be allowed. If it gets rejected then when would nm not be subject to damage. I think that is what he wants as an answer but I would argue it.... Of course I would have never run nm like that anyway

I would agree. Building features are allowed as a means to protect against damage. And, based on the fancy millwork, I'd bet that this is running close to 9 feet AFF. If my FIL reached up he could grab it (he's 6'7"), but most other folks couldn't.

P.S. OK, one possible violation is the penetration into the ceiling. If it passes into the floor above, it may not be complying with 334.15(B):

...Where passing through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid
metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic
tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, Type RTRC marked
with the suffix -XW, or other approved means extending at
least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I would agree. Building features are allowed as a means to protect against damage. And, based on the fancy millwork, I'd bet that this is running close to 9 feet AFF. If my FIL reached up he could grab it (he's 6'7"), but most other folks couldn't.

P.S. OK, one possible violation is the penetration into the ceiling. If it passes into the floor above, it may not be complying with 334.15(B):

...Where passing through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid
metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic
tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, Type RTRC marked
with the suffix -XW, or other approved means extending at
least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor.

First off we don't know where it goes. I suspect it goes into the ceiling to a light fixture or something. We cannot guess it goes thru the floor above which is what that section is talking about, IMO

 

[gadfly56]

First off we don't know where it goes. I suspect it goes into the ceiling to a light fixture or something. We cannot guess it goes thru the floor above which is what that section is talking about, IMO

Hence the italicized "possible".

 

[david]

what kind of a building is it?

 

[david]

The staple, the two staples that are close together, The nail does not seem to penetrate the NMB but when i blow the picture up in a paint program the plastic of the one staple seems to be pinching the other section of NMB.

Not clear enough to say 100 %

 

[jumper]

The staple, the two staples that are close together, The nail does not seem to penetrate the NMB but when i blow the picture up in a paint program the plastic of the one staple seems to be pinching the other section of NMB.

Not clear enough to say 100 %

Best thing I think would be to give Dennis 2 demerits for posting such a small picture.

Whaddaya say?

 

[JFletcher]

Best thing I think would be to give Dennis 2 demerits for posting such a small picture.

Whaddaya say?

Agreed!

As for violations, I don't see any. Bending radius is fine; conductors are routinely folded in half in outlet boxes and that passes. Wires routinely have sharp 90s going into breakers, and that's fine too.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Click on the picture and you will see more. That's the software that did that not me. If I post it to shutterfly I bet it can be larger

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Let's try this again. I swear it was a big picture yesterday. Let's see if this shrinks also

 

[gadfly56]

Let's try this again. I swear it was a big picture yesterday. Let's see if this shrinks also

You are correct, it was larger. I've seen the same thing happen to items I've posted. After some random interval the images shrink down.

 

[jap]

I wouldn't run it like that either, but, if I did, even if it wasn't a violation, the whole time I was running it I would be thinking that it was.


JAP>

 

[Strathead]

Agreed!

As for violations, I don't see any. Bending radius is fine; conductors are routinely folded in half in outlet boxes and that passes. Wires routinely have sharp 90s going into breakers, and that's fine too.

I disagree the bending radius isn't code compliant 334.24. The bend around the outside corner is basically a radius of zero. Looks pretty though.

 

[Master G]

NM Cables on beam

NM Cables on beam

There are several other choices beside the wiring method used here. So I'd answer: wrong wiring method. I'd personally never associate my name with that job. Pour choice.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

There are several other choices beside the wiring method used here. So I'd answer: wrong wiring method. I'd personally never associate my name with that job. Pour choice.

That doesn't make his choice non-compliant. It is not wrong in terms of NEC but perhaps wrong to you