Physical Damage

Status
Not open for further replies.
A/A Fuel GTX

A/A Fuel GTX

Senior Member
Location
WI & AZ
Occupation
Electrician
What exactly is the definition of " Subject To Physical Damage "? Is this just an arbitrary clause in the NEC?
 
A/A Fuel GTX said:
What exactly is the definition of " Subject To Physical Damage "? Is this just an arbitrary clause in the NEC?
Click to expand...
While I feel their are a lot of arbitrary rules. IMO this is not one of them. I don't even know how it can compare it to some of the really arbitrary rules. I'm sure their are exceptions , like on a ceiling or above a drop ceiling, but for the most part. "Subject to physical damage " is common sense.
 
As Buck stated it should be based on common sense since the NEC provides no guidance as to what it actually means. I see some inspectors who have zero common sense so some stupidity ensues. :rolleyes:
 
I often disagree with many on this forum about "subject to physical damage" and believe many/most things are not. Sure you can come up with a scenario where a given installation could be damaged, but many of them seem extremely unlikely to me. One example is running romex exposed on the surface which despite being specifically allowed by the NEC, nearly always gets considered subject to physical damage. I have made this joke before, but you DO NOT have to assume this is going to happen: :ROFLMAO:

 
Given that a number of wiring methods from cables to EMT have physical damage rules, there can be no set definition. In a given location, NM might be subject to physical damage where MC or EMT might not be.
Some areas address this with amendments that prohibit NM and sometimes other cable wiring methods from being installed exposed within 7' of floor level.
 
electrofelon said:
nope, totally fine, even with SE cable. Probably half the houses here have a service on the driveway side
Click to expand...
We don't have that issue. Local code only permits rigid or IMC for service conductors.

In other areas, the AHJ will see the SE cable as subject to physical damage if installed in that location.

This is one of those where you really need to know what YOUR inspection authority sees as physical damage....as they are the only ones who can make that call.
 
Actually, everything is subject to physical damage. Some inspectors with an axe to grind use this idiotic clause to get back at certain people who have had disagreements with them. Just one of the things in the NEC that should be eliminated and left to the installer to determine.
 
A/A Fuel GTX said:
Actually, everything is subject to physical damage. Some inspectors with an axe to grind use this idiotic clause to get back at certain people who have had disagreements with them. Just one of the things in the NEC that should be eliminated and left to the installer to determine.
Click to expand...
So we don't need the NEC...the installer always does what is best?
 
A/A Fuel GTX said:
No, we need the NEC. We just don't need articles that are presumptuous that we are unable make logical decisions.
Click to expand...
That is just as subjective as "subject to physical damage".

No idea of the knowledge and logical thinking ability of the installer, so rules are needed to cover every detail of the installation.

Looking forward to reading your PI to delete the physical damage rules for the 2026 code. You will be able to submit them starting after the publication of the 2023 NEC.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
That is just as subjective as "subject to physical damage".

No idea of the knowledge and logical thinking ability of the installer, so rules are needed to cover every detail of the installation.

Looking forward to reading your PI to delete the physical damage rules for the 2026 code. You will be able to submit them starting after the publication of the 2023 NEC.
Click to expand...
IMO this should be left to the installer who is probably a licensed professional and it's what he does for a living. Why set up a situation for a fight between an inspector and the electrician? I bet the electrician is probably more knowledgeable than the inspector so why should the inspector get to decide? Why do you trust the inspector more than the electrician?
 
electrofelon said:
IMO this should be left to the installer who is probably a licensed professional and it's what he does for a living. Why set up a situation for a fight between an inspector and the electrician? I bet the electrician is probably more knowledgeable than the inspector so why should the inspector get to decide? Why do you trust the inspector more than the electrician?
Click to expand...
Because many installers try to skirt the rules...the only reason we need inspectors, and around here the inspectors are far more qualified than most of the installers.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
Because many installers try to skirt the rules...the only reason we need inspectors, and around here the inspectors are far more qualified than most of the installers.
Click to expand...
Guess it depends on where you live. One of our local inspectors doesn't even have a masters license. The other jurisdiction wants us to take photos of our work and e mail it in. They sure want the permit fees though.
 
LarryFine said:
How about a service on the driveway side of a house?
Click to expand...
If the driveway paving is not at least a couple of feet away from the front of the meter I would call that "Subject to Severe Physical Damage" but I'm not your AHJ's inspector. I would imagine that most of you know that the US Supreme Court decided quite a while ago that "Neat and workman like manner" would always be "arbitrary and capricious" in it's enforcement. That can no longer be used as even partial justification for refusing acceptance of an electrical installation. In the absence of definitions I would expect some court to conclude that "Subject to Physical Damage" is also always arbitrary and capricious in it's enforcement.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
We don't have that issue. Local code only permits rigid or IMC for service conductors.

In other areas, the AHJ will see the SE cable as subject to physical damage if installed in that location.

This is one of those where you really need to know what YOUR inspection authority sees as physical damage....as they are the only ones who can make that call.
Click to expand...
Even RMC/IMC could potentially be subject to damage especially with the driveway thing and vehicles.

Where should one draw the line? I'm talking for just about anything not just driveways or RMC/IMC. Anything you install is potentially subject to physical damage, but not always at same probability.

Items on driveway side of house - probably not just too likely in most cases, but there is always some chance. How often will someone place vehicle that close to the house? They risk damaging other items as well if they do this, so in general they won't do it, it would be sort of rare occasion should it happen.

Something else already brought up - NM cable on surface, usually below 7 feet or so. Why is it automatically considered subject to physical damage? I've seen a lot of it that been exposed in such locations for decades and is in very good condition. If anything first foot or so above floor is where brooms, vacuums and such would be more frequently in use and maybe would possibly cause more damage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top