Romex in tall buildings
- Thread starter earlydean
- Start date
- Status
Re: Romex in tall buildings
334.10 limits the use of NM in other than one- and two-family dwellings to buildings that are permitted to be of Types III, IV, and V construction. Find out what type of construction was permitted for the building.
Chapter 5 in the IBC or the UBC deals with this subject, but it can get complicated and unless you work with that chapter a bit, it is easy to get confused.
This brings an interesting question to mind. What if a particular building could have, by code, been built as type III for example, but the designer chose to go with type II? I suppose by the wording of 334.10, NM could still be used? Or does the word "permitted" in items (2) and (3) of 334.10 mean "a permit was issued for"? I would like to see the words "permitted to be" removed from items (2) and (3).
[ January 13, 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: eprice ]
334.10 limits the use of NM in other than one- and two-family dwellings to buildings that are permitted to be of Types III, IV, and V construction. Find out what type of construction was permitted for the building.
Chapter 5 in the IBC or the UBC deals with this subject, but it can get complicated and unless you work with that chapter a bit, it is easy to get confused.
This brings an interesting question to mind. What if a particular building could have, by code, been built as type III for example, but the designer chose to go with type II? I suppose by the wording of 334.10, NM could still be used? Or does the word "permitted" in items (2) and (3) of 334.10 mean "a permit was issued for"? I would like to see the words "permitted to be" removed from items (2) and (3).
[ January 13, 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: eprice ]
ryan_618
Senior Member
- Location
- Salt Lake City, Utah
Re: Romex in tall buildings
I think the words "permitted" should stay. I understand your point with the conflict of definition, however the phrase permitted, when taken out of context with the rest of the NEC, means "allowed".
So to answer your question, I would allow NM cable in an unlimeited area building like a walmart, because it could have been built non-combustible.
I think the words "permitted" should stay. I understand your point with the conflict of definition, however the phrase permitted, when taken out of context with the rest of the NEC, means "allowed".
So to answer your question, I would allow NM cable in an unlimeited area building like a walmart, because it could have been built non-combustible.
Re: Romex in tall buildings
I agree, that the code as written would allow NM in a building of type I or II construction if the nature of the building would have allowed it to have been built with one of the combustible types of construction.
But there are a couple of potential problems with this:
1) Suppose under this scenario, NM is allowed in a building of type II. Then, a few years later the building is enlarged using type II construction. supose in that larger configuraion, the building would no longer have been allowed to be a combustible type construction. The NM already in the walls would then become a violation. Since the building was originally built using type II construction, no one is likely to even think about the presence of a now-non-complying component in the existing walls. Most designers and building offficials would probably just look at the existing type II construction and proceed.
2. Suppose an owner specifially asks that a building be built to type II standards with the purpose in mind that he might want to enlarge the building later. But, NM is allowed because the building would have been allowed to have been built of a combustible type of construction. The owner is not likely to understand the intricacies of the NEC and the implications of using NM in his building. Others who do know, may not know the owners future plans. When it comes time to enlarge, the owner may learn that he will need to re-wire.
I just think the cut off would be cleaner if the NEC were to simply say NM is not allowed in buildings of type I or type II construction, with the posible exception of one- and two- family dwellings.
I agree, that the code as written would allow NM in a building of type I or II construction if the nature of the building would have allowed it to have been built with one of the combustible types of construction.
But there are a couple of potential problems with this:
1) Suppose under this scenario, NM is allowed in a building of type II. Then, a few years later the building is enlarged using type II construction. supose in that larger configuraion, the building would no longer have been allowed to be a combustible type construction. The NM already in the walls would then become a violation. Since the building was originally built using type II construction, no one is likely to even think about the presence of a now-non-complying component in the existing walls. Most designers and building offficials would probably just look at the existing type II construction and proceed.
2. Suppose an owner specifially asks that a building be built to type II standards with the purpose in mind that he might want to enlarge the building later. But, NM is allowed because the building would have been allowed to have been built of a combustible type of construction. The owner is not likely to understand the intricacies of the NEC and the implications of using NM in his building. Others who do know, may not know the owners future plans. When it comes time to enlarge, the owner may learn that he will need to re-wire.
I just think the cut off would be cleaner if the NEC were to simply say NM is not allowed in buildings of type I or type II construction, with the posible exception of one- and two- family dwellings.
Re: Romex in tall buildings
The building code does address this senario. Section 901.1 of the International Existing Building Code:
"An addition to a building or structure shall comply with the building, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical codes, without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with any requirements of those codes or of these provisions."
And in Section 902.2:
"No addition shall increase the area of an existing building beyond that permitted under the applicable provisions of Chapter 5 of the International Building Code for new buildings unless fire separation as required by the International Bbuilding Code is provided."
With similiar for height.
There are ways of doing the right thing.
The building code does address this senario. Section 901.1 of the International Existing Building Code:
"An addition to a building or structure shall comply with the building, plumbing, electrical, and mechanical codes, without requiring the existing building or structure to comply with any requirements of those codes or of these provisions."
And in Section 902.2:
"No addition shall increase the area of an existing building beyond that permitted under the applicable provisions of Chapter 5 of the International Building Code for new buildings unless fire separation as required by the International Bbuilding Code is provided."
With similiar for height.
There are ways of doing the right thing.
charlie
Senior Member
- Location
- Indianapolis
Re: Romex in tall buildings
Taking it a step further. Suppose you are wiring a building that has a Class I, Div 1 area in one room. Are you saying that the whole building should be wired for Class I, Div 1 locations since the area might expand in the future?
I know, that is ridiculous; however, there is no real difference. You can only plan for the future if the owner wants to plan for the future.
Taking it a step further. Suppose you are wiring a building that has a Class I, Div 1 area in one room. Are you saying that the whole building should be wired for Class I, Div 1 locations since the area might expand in the future?
I know, that is ridiculous; however, there is no real difference. You can only plan for the future if the owner wants to plan for the future.
friebel
Senior Member
- Location
- Pennsville, N.J.
Re: Romex in tall buildings
To: Charlie, you ask the question, "if one room has an electrical classification of 1-1-D, does the entire building need to have this classification".
The answer to this question would need to be determined by personnel with the expertise of determing the materials that are being handled.
I have been involved in this exercise many times, and we would call this a "Process Hazards Review".
Their are manuals with the NFPA that would help you to make the correct classification for your building.
To: Charlie, you ask the question, "if one room has an electrical classification of 1-1-D, does the entire building need to have this classification".
The answer to this question would need to be determined by personnel with the expertise of determing the materials that are being handled.
I have been involved in this exercise many times, and we would call this a "Process Hazards Review".
Their are manuals with the NFPA that would help you to make the correct classification for your building.
- Location
- Massachusetts
Re: Romex in tall buildings
friebel, I think what Charlie is asking is pretty straight forward, along with the answer which would be no.
If you have a Class I, Div 1 production area in a building along with say offices in another area, the offices will not be wired Class I, Div 1.
By the way Charlie is familiar with NFPA documents.
friebel, I think what Charlie is asking is pretty straight forward, along with the answer which would be no.
If you have a Class I, Div 1 production area in a building along with say offices in another area, the offices will not be wired Class I, Div 1.
By the way Charlie is familiar with NFPA documents.
- Status