what does the NEC say about this?

Reply

  #1  
Old 03-26-06, 09:19 AM
F
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 749
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
what does the NEC say about this?

Running bare romex in garage, within studs or fastened to the front of the studs. The walls are unfinished. Is this against code? If not, is there a height requirement that must be exceeded in order to run it this way?

Thanks.
 
  #2  
Old 03-26-06, 09:46 AM
W
Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,219
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
The is almost _not_ an NEC issue.

The NEC requires that NM be run so as to be protected from physical damage, but the definition of physical damage is up to the local inspectors. NM is permitted to be run along framing members and the like.

What defines physical damage is pretty much subject to local rules.

In many locations, you could legally run the NM cable on the _side_ of the studs, but not on the face of the studs. In other locations you would need to protect the NM cable everywhere. Where I am, accepted practise seems to be that you can run NM exposed on the ceiling, but that you have to sleeve it in something like EMT when it goes down the wall.

If you want a better answer, you will need to contact your local electrical inspector.

-Jon
 
  #3  
Old 03-26-06, 09:53 AM
F
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 749
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
got it. For some reason I seemed to remember that it was a local issue, and a general statement in the NEC. I believe my city allows it to be run unprotected, as long is it's 6 feet off the ground.

I'll check the local code. If it's not clear, I"ll call the inspector.

Thanks !!
 
  #4  
Old 03-26-06, 11:58 AM
bolide's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: PA
Posts: 1,909
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
> I believe my city allows it to be run unprotected, as long is it's 6 feet off the ground.

An accurate statement would be that protection is required where subject to physical damage.

If cable above 6' is not subject to physical damage, then you are complying with the intent.

Why wouldn't you put it where it won't be in the way later, like down the centers of the sides of the studs?
 
  #5  
Old 03-26-06, 03:13 PM
F
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 749
Received 0 Votes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by bolide
> I believe my city allows it to be run unprotected, as long is it's 6 feet off the ground.

An accurate statement would be that protection is required where subject to physical damage.

If cable above 6' is not subject to physical damage, then you are complying with the intent.

Why wouldn't you put it where it won't be in the way later, like down the centers of the sides of the studs?
I will absolutely do that. My concern was if I had to run conduit thru the studs, instead of just the wire.
 
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
 
Ask a Question
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: