A Few Pre-wiring Questions - Following Code

[sbex55]

A couple of wiring questions checking for code compliance:

1 - I'm bring down (through header) a lot of cables into one standard residential wall bay that will be dry-walled.  The cabling consists of 8 speaker cables (14/4),  20 Cat 5 and a few control cables.  With this many cables I'm concerned getting a drywall screw through a cable as well as long term protection from homeowner 'improvements' to the other side of the wall.  Does it make sense to put a couple metal conduit pipes (say 1 1/2") through the header down into the middle of the bay?  Would this be a code violation?  Other suggestions?

Also, I'm planning to run some wiring to certain areas with the house for future-proofing.  Can I leave the wire in the wall stapled and wound up for potential future need?  Are there any code restrictions for doing this?

Thanks!

 

[drvnbysound]

Header or top plate? I assume you mean the latter.

 

[sbex55]

Yes ... top plate.

 

[wuench]

The only place a drywall screw would penetrate is where there are studs.  So you could just use the protector plates where ever there are wires/conduit going through the studs/top plate/etc.  I think the odds of you piercing a cable are probably pretty low in renovations.  If you were to hang a picture, for example, where there is no stud, you would have to use an anchor and the cables would probably get pushed out of the way.
 
But if you want, I would think you could use EMT, you might have to tie it to ground and it might be a pain to work with.
 
And you can leave wire coiled in the wall no problem.

 

[sbex55]

The only place a drywall screw would penetrate is where there are studs.  So you could just use the protector plates where ever there are wires/conduit going through the studs/top plate/etc.  I think the odds of you piercing a cable are probably pretty low in renovations.  If you were to hang a picture, for example, where there is no stud, you would have to use an anchor and the cables would probably get pushed out of the way.
 
But if you want, I would think you could use EMT, you might have to tie it to ground and it might be a pain to work with.
 
And you can leave wire coiled in the wall no problem.

Thank you!

 

[Del91574]

EMT or flex (greenfield) can be used, but the ends of the pipe/flex need to have a connector or bushing installed. Does not need to be connected to ground for an ungrounded system (LV) or for the voltage involved. You would need to firestop the penetration inside and around the outside to be compliant.
 
Far easier to install nail plates and then leave cabling inside the walls, but don't staple or bundle too tight.

 

[sbex55]

Got it.  Thank you!

 

[archstenton]

Is this an interior or exterior wall?  Bearing or non-bearing? Do you live in high seismic or wind regions?
 
1.5" conduit, what's O.D. 1.75? so your hole might be 1 7/8" or something.  You're right at the 50% threshold of maximum size hole without reinforcing the 2x4 top plates with a metal strap, strictly going by the IRC.
 
Top plates are an important component of the lateral force(seismic/wind) resisting system of your house, depending on their location.
 
If the house is custom designed, not prescriptive per IRC, then the strap mentioned in the IRC may not be sufficient, again based on the answers to the above questions.

 

[Del91574]

Not to dismiss, but the IRC vs. the NEC are two different items and the IRC is not universally accepted or enforced vs. the NEC.
 
Not to get into a war, but you can remove up to 60% of a framing member for a bored hole for mechanical services as long as certain criteria are met and the member is not an engineered piece of lumber and still be compliant. Seismic code requirements are an entirely different beast.

 

[archstenton]

Not to dismiss, but the IRC vs. the NEC are two different items and the IRC is not universally accepted or enforced vs. the NEC.
 
Not to get into a war, but you can remove up to 60% of a framing member for a bored hole for mechanical services as long as certain criteria are met and the member is not an engineered piece of lumber and still be compliant. Seismic code requirements are an entirely different beast.

 
OK, if not IRC, then IBC.  A house has to get constructed under some building code too, not just electrical.  Not saying you can't do more than 50%, but you need to strap the top plates if you do, if it's a bearing wall or any type of exterior wall.  Like I said if the house was specifically engineered, better check with the structural engineer, might even be more restrictions.
 
It's the same thing with the exothermic/CAD weld with the Ufer in the other thread,  Not all, but some electricians don't even realize the structural ramifications of welding rebar.  Was the rebar A706, A615? Is that bar a critical bar in the structural performance of a building.  If it's like a #8 or #9 probably, if it's  a #4 not as much. 

 

[Del91574]

Not all portions of the country have adopted the IRC or the IBC or what they contain, both in parts or entirety. Yes, there are building codes, but there are also sections that do not specifically apply across the board. There are also portions of the country that don't have a building code at all....let alone any enforceable action (a whole different can of worms and rabbit hole to go through) and literally almost anything is allowable, though the local government has stated they view sections of code as minimums, though they *technically* can build and develop as they wish with no state government involvement, let alone inspections.
 
There's always going to be arguments between trades, code officials and structural engineers, not to mention systems engineers, however while exothermic welding does involve weakening a piece of rebar...well, my code says that it's necessary to be done....then it goes round the circle again....where's the safety margin on the engineered prints for the steel? Where's the prints that show where I am allowed and not allowed to connect EG to the steel? Hate to say it but the people on the other side of the papers tend to omit and have many errors on their drawings or use the "typical" clauses far too often. Once that stamp is applied to the prints it seems like all accountability is tossed out the window unless something really happens and people get hurt. Just tossing my $.02 experience with prints, engineered drawings and bringing errors/omissions to those party's attention often.

 

[archstenton]

Not all portions of the country have adopted the IRC or the IBC or what they contain, both in parts or entirety. Yes, there are building codes, but there are also sections that do not specifically apply across the board. There are also portions of the country that don't have a building code at all....let alone any enforceable action (a whole different can of worms and rabbit hole to go through) and literally almost anything is allowable, though the local government has stated they view sections of code as minimums, though they *technically* can build and develop as they wish with no state government involvement, let alone inspections.
 
There's always going to be arguments between trades, code officials and structural engineers, not to mention systems engineers, however while exothermic welding does involve weakening a piece of rebar...well, my code says that it's necessary to be done....then it goes round the circle again....where's the safety margin on the engineered prints for the steel? Where's the prints that show where I am allowed and not allowed to connect EG to the steel? Hate to say it but the people on the other side of the papers tend to omit and have many errors on their drawings or use the "typical" clauses far too often. Once that stamp is applied to the prints it seems like all accountability is tossed out the window unless something really happens and people get hurt. Just tossing my $.02 experience with prints, engineered drawings and bringing errors/omissions to those party's attention often.

You're right about building codes, it's just that the title of the thread said "Following Code", so I assume there was interest in code requirements, rather enforced or not.
 
And you're right about the people on the other side of the papers, I'm not going to defend all engineers, heck I can't even defend myself from succumbing to change orders that have cost a lot more than $.02, I'll just label them as "misunderstandings"   :wacko: on my part.
 
On the rebar, not saying you can't weld it but there are serious considerations involved, and probably not on the drawings, but most likely should be buried in the specs somewhere about field work. Personally, I try to coordinate with the electrical engineer before construction mainly from personal experience on a past job and what happened.

 

[Del91574]

In a residence, usually you'll never see most trades boring out 60% of the header, but I have seen it many times with a vent stack and there's no requirement in my corner of the country to reinforce or strap the area, only to do such for physical protection (nail plates) and it really didn't make a difference between interior or exterior walls as long as main load bearing columns were avoided (also engineered lumber and beams)
 
I think the seismic requirement, barring Alaska is pretty much a CA thing, however hurricane and wind requirements and strapping are another affair.