What wiring method; your take?

Status
Not open for further replies.
peter d said:
Nice. :roll:

It's always comforting to hear that reasons for these changes only cost the customer a mere $60,000. :roll:
Click to expand...

Don't shed a tear, the customer did this for their own reasons, they need zoning changes, intersections added to main roads etc.

It was a case of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.

Take the large mall right down the street from me, the developer 'gave' the town a brand new fire station. Do you really think that was a gift with no strings attached? :wink:
 
iwire said:
It was a case of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.
Click to expand...

Well, in that case we know stuff like that happens all the time.

But from a strict NEC standpoint without the politics it seems like a waste of time and money to have done the job that way.
 
peter d said:
But from a strict NEC standpoint without the politics it seems like a waste of time and money to have done the job that way.
Click to expand...

In my own opinion the change from NM to MC in that building did almost nothing to increase the safety of the occupants. That same $60,000 could have been spent on smoke evac systems which would help with smoke from any source. Perhaps more could have been spent on the sprinkler system.
 
iwire said:
In my own opinion the change from NM to MC in that building did almost nothing to increase the safety of the occupants. That same $60,000 could have been spent on smoke evac systems which would help with smoke from any source. Perhaps more could have been spent on the sprinkler system.
Click to expand...

You are right, I hate to see MC used like this. They should have spent a bit more money and ran everything in EMT.

For the first 20 years the only thing I ever ran in Romex was temp. lights.
 
growler said:
You are right, I hate to see MC used like this. They should have spent a bit more money and ran everything in EMT.
Click to expand...

That would be prettier.

Now how would it be safer?

Remember the building;

1) Non-combustible construction

2) Fully sprinklered

3) Single Level

4) Many exits directly to outdoors on all four sides

5) Full fire alarm system

6) No Sleeping

7) Ducted returns

How would EMT make it safer then NM for the occupants?

I am entirely against any 'make work' type arguments.
 
growler said:
They should have spent a bit more money and ran everything in EMT.
Click to expand...

To see a supermarket wired with all EMT here in New England would be like seeing pigs fly.

Most of the major supermarkets were wired in NM cable for the last 25 or so years before the code change in '02 (before that there were no "supermarkets," just small local markets), now they are using MC cable.

We just don't have the "use pipe for everything" mentality here like the rest of the country seems to.
 
peter d said:
To see a supermarket wired with all EMT here in New England would be like seeing pigs fly.
Click to expand...

Pete, I have never even seen a supermarket wired in NM. Many of the ones in this area are still done in EMT.

Just a few years ago most commercial buildings were all wired with EMT and MC cable. A few small offices were done in NM but not that many.

If that is what you are used to seeing I quess it's OK. I'm just getting old ( I'll have to start shopping for a tomb stone before long, thinking about one of those new plastic ones )

I guess I'm still into "Pigs on the Wing" and many other Pink Floyd songs for I have become " Comfortably Numb". :grin:
 
growler said:
If that is what you are used to seeing I quess it's OK.
Click to expand...

My only major point was to show how different things can be from one state to the next. :cool:

As I said, it seems to me like most of the rest of the country uses pipe for commercial work, here it's almost entirely MC for branch circuits and even feeders as well. In MA where NM is still allowed above drop ceilings, you will see many jobs still being done in NM.
 
Marc
I think the inspector or whoever the person was who said "nope, its a commercial buiding" kind of mixed up his ideas a little.

What he may have meant is the type of building you are describing falls under the "Building Code". In the building code there are building types. So this building gets built and wired somewhat (not all of the same requirements) as a commercial building. I choose not to go into the detail of the differences, I was just trying to get into this inspectors head and give a reason why he said what he said - pure guessing on my part.
 
One more comment. I don't really care how they decide to wire this building.

This type of situation happens more or less all over the country. The simple solution is for the builder/owner to have to furnish a set of plans for review. The wiring method is either approved or not, but everyone knows for sure going in.

With no electrical drawings it gets down to who is willing to cut the most corners and maybe take the most chances on getting caught.

Everyone should be bidding the same job but only trying to calculate how to do it in the most efficient manner.

By the way, like my new signature, I saw that today and couldn't stop laughing.
 
Last edited:
mdshunk said:
Question is regarding a 3-story wood framed building under renovation. Gut job. 4 apartments on the top floor, 4 apartments on the 2nd floor, and a large retail store on the ground floor.

I've inquired with the local inspection agency regarding the proposed wiring method. The entire building will have a suspended ceiling system. I proposed to use MC in above the dropped ceiling in the common area hallways on the 2nd and 3rd floors, MC above the dropped ceiling in the retail store, and romex above the dropped ceiling in each apartment unit. I think this squares pretty well with the code. The answer I got, in short, "Nope, the whole thing is a commercial building. No exposed romex above the suspended ceilings in the apartments".

Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

I think the building you describe is a "mixed occupancy" and not a "multiple dwelling" building. I think 334.12(2) applies, which allows cables in dropped or suspended ceilings for multiple dwellings, but excludes multi-occupancy building. JMHO :smile:
 
mdshunk said:
I've inquired with the local inspection agency regarding the proposed wiring method. The entire building will have a suspended ceiling system. I proposed to use MC in above the dropped ceiling in the common area hallways on the 2nd and 3rd floors, MC above the dropped ceiling in the retail store, and romex above the dropped ceiling in each apartment unit. I think this squares pretty well with the code. The answer I got, in short, "Nope, the whole thing is a commercial building. No exposed romex above the suspended ceilings in the apartments".

Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm off base here - but is this inspector CORRECT on this point? i.e. 'uses not permited'?????
 
e57 said:
Correct me if I'm off base here - but is this inspector CORRECT on this point? i.e. 'uses not permited'?????
Click to expand...
That's what I'm asking. I don't think he is correct. An apartment in a building is a dwelling, in my opinion.
 
In the subject building, there is a third floor consisting of dwelling units, a 2nd floor consisting of dwelling units, and a ground floor consisting of a mercantile occupancy. This classifies the building as a mixed use building.

If the building consisted wholly of dwelling units on all floors it could be classified as a multiple dwelling and the provisions of 334.10(2) would apply.

The NM rules continually, code cycle after cycle, need work on clarity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top