Physical Damage

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sparkyallday

Member
Is there a problem with running romex on the bottom of floor joist in a crawl space. And I do mean a crawl space, Not something that you need an extension ladder in. I mean dirt floor with a vapor barrier, with maybe 3 to 6 foot of head room. And a little tiny door where you can't believe that they got that furnace in. I have been failed for this, and the inspector said it was because that the wires were subject to PHYSICAL DAMAGE. The only thing that I can find is in 334.15 (c). Which is unfinished basements. Is there any way to get some clarifacation on this? Or a code reference To make this clear? Thanks

Andrew Kist
Asheville Nc.
 
sparkyallday said:
Is there a problem with running romex on the bottom of floor joist in a crawl space. And I do mean a crawl space, Not something that you need an extension ladder in. I mean dirt floor with a vapor barrier, with maybe 3 to 6 foot of head room. And a little tiny door where you can't believe that they got that furnace in. I have been failed for this, and the inspector said it was because that the wires were subject to PHYSICAL DAMAGE. The only thing that I can find is in 334.15 (c). Which is unfinished basements. Is there any way to get some clarifacation on this? Or a code reference To make this clear? Thanks

Andrew Kist
Asheville Nc.
Click to expand...
6' of head room sound like an unfinished basement, really unfinished.....
 
A crawl space is not a basement. The inspector should know the difference between the two.
 
Your inspector has provided you with what I like to affectionatly call "code mumbo jumbo". He was probably instructed as an apprentice that it was an unallowed practice by another misinformed electrician, who learned it from another person who never bothered with the code book, etc. I have been hit with that one for crawl spaces. For decades since I have run cables along joist and beams, not cutting across the bottom of joist. I drill the blocking also. To me it just looks nicer, and no one can suspend the nose of a surfboard from it. But I know that the code does not require it.
 
IMO the inspector is correct.

The general rule with NM run exposed is that it must closely follow the buildings finish or use running boards. IMO running on the bottom side of the joists in a crawl space is not closely following the buildings finish.

334.15 Exposed Work.
In exposed work, except as provided in 300.11(A), the cable shall be installed as specified in 334.15(A) through (C).

(A) To Follow Surface. The cable shall closely follow the surface of the building finish or of running boards.
Click to expand...

We can argue that point but it is really up to the inspector to decide what the building finish is.

Now when we get to basements we have a specific rule that allows larger cables to run along the bottom of the joists.

334.15(C) In Unfinished Basements. Where the cable is run at angles with joists in unfinished basements, it shall be permissible to secure cables not smaller than two 6 AWG or three 8 AWG conductors directly to the lower edges of the joists. Smaller cables shall be run either through bored holes in joists or on running boards.
Click to expand...
 
We had a long discussion on this subject a couple of month ago.
Do a search.
steve

Edit
The post was titled "crawl space wall dilemma"
I don't know how to attach it, so do a search
 
Last edited:
sparkyallday said:
I have been failed for this, and the inspector said it was because that the wires were subject to PHYSICAL DAMAGE.

Thank goodness he only cited you for PHYSICAL DAMAGE.
I mean what other kind of damage could a wire be exposed to?
Emotional Damage?
steve
Click to expand...
 
hillbilly said:
We had a long discussion on this subject a couple of month ago.
Click to expand...
Click here for the related thread.

I agree with the inspector and Bob, the NM is technically required to follow the finish or running boards.

hillbilly said:
I mean what other kind of damage could a wire be exposed to?
Emotional Damage?
Click to expand...
Steve, a fella actually proposed deleting the "physical" from damage:
1-29 Log #261 NEC-P01 Final Action: Reject
(100. Enclosure)
_____________________________________________________________
Submitter: David Shapiro, Safety First Electrical Contracting, Consulting, and
Safety Education
Recommendation: Revise as follows:
Enclosure. The case of housing of apparatus, or the fence or walls surrounding an installation to prevent personnel from accidentally contacting energized parts, or to protect the equipment from physical damage.
Substantiation: The word is superfluous. Submitting proposals removing the adjective may strike people as useful as hunting gnats with a cannon. However, doing so seems worthwhile for two reasons. First, if we eliminate every instance, as I am attempting to do, we actually cut the NEC down by up to oh, half a page. Keeping it from growing too much fatter every cycle is a goal many of us can agree on.
Second, the use of ?physical? is not only poor writing?look at William Zinsser?s classic, On Writing Well? but silly, and reflects a bit poorly on the Code process. When the references were changed to ?physical damage,? in 1959, from ?mechanical injury? (with no substantiation recorded), an excellent opportunity was overlooked to eliminate the possibility of someone raising an eyebrow and saying fatuously, ?Is anyone claiming electrical equipment needs protection from non-physical injury?? (Substitute the snide adjective of your choice.) Let?s take care of that for good: for our purposes, ?damage? means ?physical damage.?
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement: ?Physical damage? is a common term used in industry. Generally, it is damage caused to property from external events, such as accidents, vandalism, destruction, and other potential hazards. CMP-1 notes to the submitter that an enclosure does not protect equipment from internal events, such as caused by short-circuit and ground-fault conditions or computer and data errors. In addition, this proposal is in violation of 3.2.5.5 of the NEC Style Manual, as the term ?physical damage? is a special term identified in that section.
Number Eligible to Vote: 12
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 12
Click to expand...
Just a little worthless information to kick off your Sunday. ;)
 
the question begs: what is the "real" physical damage that may occur in a "crawl" space?

Will this same damage be avoided by boring holes in the beams?

Following the surface of the building... is not the surface of the framing the surface, if there is no finish such as sheetrock, plywood, etc...?

I inspect lots of crawl spaces, most of the crawl spaces will not be used much, as access and space constraint will limit this use tremendously.
Just my opinion.

Maybe this section could be massaged to help...
1. a definition of crawl space with maybe a height thrown in for good measure.
As one gets older, that height can increase due to stiffness of the back and neck :)
 
Last edited:
I think that basements and crawl spaces should be regulated as to their height.
Crawlspaces should be high enough for you to sit down and reach the wiring without hitting your head or having to stoop, and Basements low enough that you can stand up straight and reach them without using a ladder.
Just my 2 cents.
steve
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
the question begs: what is the "real" physical damage that may occur in a "crawl" space?

Will this same damage be avoided by boring holes in the beams?
Click to expand...
One instance where it would help would be, large person/small crawlspace. I could do some serious damage just army-crawling through some crawlspaces.

That said, I'm glad no one has seen my crawlspace. :D :D
 
Out here in So-Cal the crawl spaces are 18" at best, so wiring is not considered 'exposed' to anything. Kind of like the attic in a truss roof house more than 6' from the access hole.
 
Chris: And to think, in the second picture there is a sign warning of a see-saw crossing. They should obviously replace the sign with

Caution
Houses On Shoulder
Of Road
Next 20 miles​

:D
 
i think the code says in unfinish basement , wire has to be ran through holes bored 1.25" from edge of joists. but u can support 8/3 or #6 to bottom of joists. but is a crawl space considered a unfinish basement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top