Romex laying on top of furring

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

In the above quoted section i did not see any wording that suggestes that they can not be supported if they are X distance away from the framing member. they are parallel, that is it, they need to be supported.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Originally posted by jbwhite:
In the above quoted section i did not see any wording that suggestes that they can not be supported if they are X distance away from the framing member. they are parallel, that is it, they need to be supported.
Click to expand...
I am lost, they always need to be supported unless fished and they always need to be secured.

You had said.

300.4 (D) in 2005 would not allow this. But it will allow them to install nail plates in the exception.
Click to expand...
To which I replied it does not apply to the wires perpendicular to the furring strips and away from the joists.

[ January 05, 2006, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

iwire, we got past the fishing part here.

Originally posted by romeo:
This is a rough inspection on a new home,everything is open. The wires are laying on top of the furring without any staples etc. in lengths of up to 25ft. without securing. The electrician considers the cables secured because they are laying on the furring that is 16" apart. the distance from the edge of the cable ( romex ) to the bottom of the furring is less than 3/4". the question is securing of the cable because Massachusetts changed the 1 1/4"requirement to 1 1/4" Thanks romeo
Click to expand...
we have moved on to new construction. :)
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

one could secure the wires to the furing strips and use nail plates for protection.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

romeo, yes. This is a code violation. Now I see the picture as we have discussed.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Romeo, I know eaxctly what you are talking about. I agree there is a violation, and I also personaly think this is some serious hack work.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

romeo, YES is violation your Electrical "Installer" Note: I did not use "Electrician" must secure NMB with staples or other approved means 334.30 and protect when secured less than 1-1/4" from edge of framing members 300.4 (or Mass. requirements) Also, as an Inspector myself, If You are thorough and fair Yes, I would want You to Inspect my work. Thanks,hoped I helped.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

The situation which romeo describes is a violation as others have mentioned since the nm cable is not secured at proper intervals. The "laying" on top of the furring is not necessarily a violation in MA, only if it is not secured. There is a formal interpretation regarding nm cables installed "diagonal" under joists and above furring which basically says that it is legal as long as the nm cable is at least 3/4" from furring where furring intersects joist.

Romeo, what town are you in?
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

I have been an electrician for 20 years and an Electrical inspector for 1 year.I take great pride in my work and probably go overboard in making it look neet.Now that I am an inspector it amazes me how sloppy some of the work out their is and how theseINSTALLERS will argue with the inspector over something that is so easy to correct.If I were in their shoes I would exactly what the inspector asked(within reason)to be on his good side.
Paul
City of Gretna Electrical Inspector
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

IMO if the nm is laying on top of the furring there are no provisions that require it to be secured as it is supported.It must be protected where it passes these furring that`s where 300 4 D is in play.Protection from physical damage as it passes by the structural framing members.So a nail plate takes care of that.Now if it were to run parallel with the furring then 1 1/4 would have to be maintained along the run.A few 3M furring stackers is all that is required on parallel runs but perpindicular runs require protection as nm passes by structrual IE: furring with an approved nail plate.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Originally posted by allenwayne:
IMO if the nm is laying on top of the furring there are no provisions that require it to be secured as it is supported.
Click to expand...
That's odd. :confused:

334.30 Securing and Supporting.
Nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall be secured by staples, cable ties, straps, hangers, or similar fittings designed and installed so as not to damage the cable at intervals not exceeding 1.4 m (41/2 ft) and within 300 mm (12 in.) of every cabinet, box, or fitting. Flat cables shall not be stapled on edge.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Originally posted by bassphisher:
If I were in their shoes I would exactly what the inspector asked(within reason)to be on his good side.
Paul
City of Gretna Electrical Inspector
Click to expand...
Sounds like a threat. :eek:

[ January 06, 2006, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: electricmanscott ]
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Originally posted by j_erickson:
The situation which romeo describes is a violation as others have mentioned since the nm cable is not secured at proper intervals. The "laying" on top of the furring is not necessarily a violation in MA, only if it is not secured. There is a formal interpretation regarding nm cables installed "diagonal" under joists and above furring which basically says that it is legal as long as the nm cable is at least 3/4" from furring where furring intersects joist.

Romeo, what town are you in?
Click to expand...
I don't see that in the Mass amendments John.
Where could I get that?
I would never install that way as I think it is crap work but I seen others do it.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Scott, I have a copy of an electrical interpretation from the board of fire prevention regulations. It is a formal interpretation to a question submitted by William Laidler and Donald Giombetti. I printed and saved it from the Office of the state Fire Marshall site. I'll try to find site and post link.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Thanks John. I know if Bill is involved these things are very reliable.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

In case anyone is less than clear about the furring being discussed here:

These furring strips are typically 1x2's or 1x3's run perpendicularly to the joists or trusses, and can be shimmed to make a ceiling flatter than it would be otherwise if the framing is uneven.

Sometimes, the furring is used to change the direction of the long dimension of the drywall, because it is usually installed perpendicularly to the framing to which it is attached.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

From a builder's standpoint those furring strips are not the ones the NEC refers to. The NEC is refering to furring strips intended to protect wires below an unfinished ceiling, or on top of a ceiling joist in an unfinished attic. As a practical standpoint j_e's method of support/fastening at joist points would meet the 1.25 requirement as long as they are only screwing the drywall at the joists and not all along the furring strips.
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Originally posted by Fred S.:
From a builder's standpoint those furring strips are not the ones the NEC refers to. The NEC is refering to furring strips intended to protect wires below an unfinished ceiling, or on top of a ceiling joist in an unfinished attic.
Click to expand...
Not in this case Fred, in this section under discussion the firring strips are the ones used to support drywall.

The strips intended to protect wires below an unfinished ceiling, or on top of a ceiling joists NEC calls "running boards".
 
Re: Romex laying on top of furring

Here is a good but blurry shot of strapping and NM using the space it provides.

Strapping.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top