Thread: Romex running under joist

Type NM cable is for use in normally dry locations. This wording from the UL standard implies that occasional departure from normal to damp or wet location would be acceptable for using NM cable. Not a very clear statement.

Also to address something Jeff said--There are lots of dry crawl spaces in this state and an occasional area that contains damp crawl spaces. It then becomes the responsiblity of the BO or EI to define these spaces. In general, I have not seen any issues with NM installed regardless of dampness.

MR.peck,
How in the world can you say I grabbed one sentence out of the commentary, when I never even quoted any of it? I simply tried to get you to read it and admit your errors. The commentary covers ALL aspects of unfinished basements & crawl spaces. Both the protection of wiring(that you drug into this in post #10)and the fact the NM IS ALLOWED.

WHY WILL YOU NOT BACK UP YOUR OPINIONS LIKE i ASK YOU?
WOULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST THAT - OPINIONS?

everyone agrees( except you) that NM is allowed by the NEC in a crawl space, and that NM is not allowed in damp/wet locations.



Now that part you can't or won't admit to- NOT EVERY CRAWL SPACE IS DAMP. YOU say they are - show the written documentation that clearly declares EVERY CRAWL SPACE IN THE USA as damp/wet. LEGAL documentation that is not your ramblings.

OK Jerry - time for you to twist and shake some more, go ahead cut and paste a ton of posts everyone has already read.Maybe you'll insult me or some others some more also

Here's an idea - how about we post this question over at Mike Holts forum to see what they think?
Their a bunch of smart,professional people over there. What do you say????

Sounds like the gauntlet has been thrown. Will he answer the challenge?

Stay tuned.

I have no idea what Jim is talking about, guess he means Ken 'took the gloves off'. From his posts, I was not aware that he was wearing any gloves to take off.

However, *I AM* truly amazed that Ken feels he needs to ask my permission to ask a question someplace else.

And, yes, you may go to the bathroom now, here is a note for the hallway.

Surprised that someone can't figure out a common expression. The gauntlet has been thrown means a challenge has been issued. I think Ken was asking if you were up to seeing what an educated group of people would think about this topic and how they would respond.

Seems like a courtesy to ask before getting others involved, lest someones feeling get hurt.

Originally Posted by Jim Port

Seems like a courtesy to ask before getting others involved, lest someones feeling get hurt.

Unless Ken's feelings are apt to get hurt, I am STILL shocked and amazed that Ken needs to ask for permission, and that he needs his buddy Jim to reply on his behalf.

Does anyone use and reference NPFA 73??

1) I am not asking permission
2) I was showing some common courtesy as it is your name also that would be brought in when referencing these posts.
3) WHY would my feelings get hurt?
4) WHY would I be wearing gloves - It's not like I'm going up against a heavy hitter.
5)My buddy? I have never met Jim. He does seem to be a knowledgeable person when it comes to dealing with electrical issues. I would not hesitate to ask him for advice on any electrical issues in the future.
6) The reason your shocked is, most likely you are next to a pool you did and failed to install the equipotential grid properly

Maybe it's not correct, but they'd run me outa town if I called out every crawlspace I see with NM? wire stapled under the joists. Who wants to crawl in and fix them?
John Kogel
www.allsafehome .ca

Here's what some Mike Holt sparkys had to say.

Mike Holt's Forum > NEC
The use of "NM" cable
#1 04-14-2005, 07:45 AM
kevinware
Senior Member Join Date: May 2003
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 156

The use of "NM" cable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As defined by article 100 a "damp location" is one protected from weather and not subject to saturation with water or other liquids but subject to moderate degrees of moisture. Would a crawl space under a house fall under this definition? Article 334.10(A)(1) states (A)"type NM cable shall be permitted as follows"
(1) For both exposed and concealed work in normally dry locations except as prohibited in 334.10(3). Section 334.10(B)(1) states the NMC cable shall be permitted in both exposed and concealed work in dry, moist, damp, or corrosive locations, except as prohibited in 334.10(3). Does the NEC by definition require me to use "NMC" in the crawl space or can I use "NM cable"????
Thanks for all your help,
Kevin
kevinware
View Public Profile
Send a private message to kevinware
Find all posts by kevinware
#2 04-14-2005, 09:38 AM
steve66
Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,461

Re: The use of "NM" cable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal opinion: You are ok if the wire is supported from the bottom of the joists. There the wire wouldn't be subject to moisture, just some humidity.
If you are laying it on the ground, I think that would be a damp or even wet location.
Steve
steve66
View Public Profile
Send a private message to steve66
Find all posts by steve66



Mike Holt's Forum > NEC
Wiring in crawl space
#1 08-21-2007, 05:30 PM
mikederuby
Junior Member Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13

Wiring in crawl space
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have a school with a ventilated crawl space. Which location is this are classified as (damp, wet or dry)? Will set screw fitting be OK?
mikederuby
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mikederuby
Find all posts by mikederuby
#2 08-21-2007, 05:41 PM
Physis 3
Guest Posts: n/a


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't article 100 handle this question?
Physis 3
#3 08-21-2007, 05:52 PM
mikederuby
Junior Member Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I looked to article 100 and still had to question if the crawl space would be an area not normally subject to dampness or wetness due to the ventilation fans installed. One could consider this area a dry location I would think.
mikederuby
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mikederuby
Find all posts by mikederuby
#4 08-21-2007, 05:53 PM
mdshunk
Banned Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Right here.
Posts: 12,327


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If any crawl space is "normally wet", then it's a failure mode and not a normal condition. I'd wire it like any other crawl space.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by mdshunk; 08-21-2007 at 06:04 PM.
mdshunk
View Public Profile
Find all posts by mdshunk
#5 08-21-2007, 06:08 PM
raider1
Moderator Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: North Logan, Utah
Posts: 3,475


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could be damp or dry check out the definitions of location damp, and location dry in Article 100. Either way, set screw fittings would be acceptable.
Chris

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Ok, I know this is going to add gas to the fire but the crawl space floor is very wet. Moreover, water is ponding in areas of the crawl space and there is mold on the ceiling of the crawl space.

Mat

IIRC you previously posted the crawl had an earthen base covered only with a vapor barrier or vapor retarder, and was vented/open to the outdoors.

Is this crawl considered completed and final or is this incomplete, suspended, in-progress, building or remodeling work?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Mathew Stouffer,

It is unfortunate that your topic string has been hijacked by others who ignore your own posts.

That unconditioned natural ventilation crawlspace would be considered a damp location. Condensation would be likely as you describe it, poor choice of insulation materials for the as-described crawl space.

There are a multitude of issues with this crawl space's "rats nest"(as you called it) although hosting a mouse colony might be more likely .

Yes the draped unsecured, twisted, bundled cable, not maintaining spacing, and intermixed with comunications cable and low voltage is a problem. Not too keen on the pex draped below either.

The draping/unsupported cable not permitted. It does not meet either 334.20(B)(1) or (2) of 2005 NEC.

Regarding your orginal post. Perhaps the NEC, 2008 edition. 2005 was not as specific about crawl spaces but the intent was clear, 2008 was changed to reflect the intent of the prior edition while it was re-numbered.

2005 NEC 334.15 (C) discusses this being prohibited in unfinished basements. Except for two 6 awg or three 8 awg cables which may be secured directly to the lower edges of the joists, all smaller cables have to be run either through bored holes in joists or on running boards

This was clarified to include same requirements for crawlspaces and unfinished basements and crawlspaces in the 2008 NEC at 334.15(C).

Both editions mentioned above the sub-sections are titled Exposed Work.

Unfinished does not mean unconditioned. NM-B doesn't belong in unconditioned naturally ventillated crawlspace.

How was the ski season?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

An unfinished ceiling cavity of an unconditoned crawl space which has natural ventillation is at a minimum a damp location.

Just as Unfinished basements.

The section is Exposed Work.

Type NM both the eariler NM and the present NM-B is not for other than DRY locations.

Some crawl spaces are conditoned and closed, and likewise have a sealed floor. In Dry conditioned crawl spaces with unfinished ceiling cavity (exposed work) NM-B would be permitted; however, not installed as pictured on the original post.

Mathew Stouffer,

The UL White Book as well as the edition of the NEC with local amendments in place at the time of the work might prove helpful, you would be in a better position locally to contact the AHJ and inquire regarding the local conditions. As you have indicated the crawl space of discussion has a multitude of "issues" beyond the choice of materials for the electrical system.

It seems there are those who would rather nit pick a singular issue rather than address your original post, photographs and further contributions to your own topic string, and direct their posts on-topic (your topic).

The structural members are clearly marked, I would further suggest you would be better served if you looked into the specifications for those members. You will find that there are specific guidelines as to where in the web they may and may not be bored or knocked out.

I hope you have enough information in a timely enough manner to form your report. Hope that helps.

Regards,

H.G.

Originally Posted by ken horak

MR.peck,
How in the world can you say I grabbed one sentence out of the commentary, when I never even quoted any of it? I simply tried to get you to read it and admit your errors. The commentary covers ALL aspects of unfinished basements & crawl spaces. Both the protection of wiring(that you drug into this in post #10)and the fact the NM IS ALLOWED.

WHY WILL YOU NOT BACK UP YOUR OPINIONS LIKE i ASK YOU?
WOULD IT BE BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST THAT - OPINIONS?

everyone agrees( except you) that NM is allowed by the NEC in a crawl space, and that NM is not allowed in damp/wet locations.



Now that part you can't or won't admit to- NOT EVERY CRAWL SPACE IS DAMP. YOU say they are - show the written documentation that clearly declares EVERY CRAWL SPACE IN THE USA as damp/wet. LEGAL documentation that is not your ramblings.

OK Jerry - time for you to twist and shake some more, go ahead cut and paste a ton of posts everyone has already read.Maybe you'll insult me or some others some more also

Here's an idea - how about we post this question over at Mike Holts forum to see what they think?
Their a bunch of smart,professional people over there. What do you say????

Originally Posted by ken horak

2) I was showing some common courtesy as it is your name also that would be brought in when referencing these posts.

Ken,

Your post was certainly NOT anything close to showing "common courtesy".

Talk about trying to switch things around.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

I found a section in the code that states Romex must run through joists and not be stapled to the underside. Does this include crawl space installations. Romex in photos is hanging along the underside of some joists and running through punch outs in others. The whole thing is a rats nest.

Thank you
Mat

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

H.G. Watson, Sr. vbmenu_register("postmenu_76819", true);
Thank you for the response. The crawl space is an earth floor vented crawl space with a vapor barrier. Moreover, the insulation has no vapor barrier, although a vapor retarder is covering the crawl space floor.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Ok, I know this is going to add gas to the fire but the crawl space floor is very wet. Moreover, water is ponding in areas of the crawl space and there is mold on the ceiling of the crawl space.

Mat

Mathew Stouffer (Mat),

With the latest "wrinkle" of the pooled water and suspected fungus or mold in the previously described crawlspace ceiling/floor assembly above, it seems there are more important structural issues beyond the ripped non-circular or square holes, and the Chapter 3 wiring issues.

It looks to me that those are residential Weyerhaeuser TJI (R) Series Joists (Prefabricated Wood I-Joists). I cannot make see enough in the pictures to completely identify (size, type) except that it is obvious regarding manufacturer (hint CCMC number). From what I can make out from the photos they appear to be non-vented webs and sawn lumber flanges (as opposed to "Microllam(R) LVL or "TimberStrand(R) LSL). I recall them being "orange boxed" as "TJI (R) joists are intended for dry-use applications" in the now discontinued (for that vintage) specifiers.

Although the HUD Code report has subsequently been revised (presently rev. 11) and I can't locate the HUD 6/89 revision dated 07-07-06, I am confident that they were even then for dry use locations.

For your information I offer a link to the revision 11 code report (HUD): http://www.ilevel.com/literature/HUDSEB689Rev11.pdf
Canadian standards are even stricter limiting in-use at 15% MC and no history of exceeding even brief periods of 19% prior to in use.

Moisture probing (invasive) and structural integrity/engineering evaulations are usually beyond the skill set and perview of the general HI.

A strongly recommend referral/deferral to Structural Engineer (and environmental engineer) as necessary the integrity of the structural ceiling/floor material (TJI's and sub-floor) over the crawl may be compromised - disclaimer and specialized inspection, analysis and report warranted. At this point (sharing of additional conditions of the crawl space area) the other concerns and possible remediations are akin to "putting the cart before the horse".

The presence of the standing water, moist TJIs, plates, insulation, and the presence of suspected mold/fungus (recommend you documment/photograph) should be noted in conjunction with the other areas of concern regarding the electrical system installation, less-than-round or square rip-outs, and insulation issues mentioned in my prior posts.

You may still be able to acquire now discontinued from the website library technical documents applicable to the TJIs I'm not sure, perhaps if you call and ask of the technical department at (Truss Joist TJI contact) 1-888-453-8358 iLevel by Weyerhaeuser or iLevel@weyerhaeuser.com

Hope that helps,
H.G.

P.S. It is unfortunate and discourteous that others posting on this string ignore your contributions to it, as it is a subject string that you, yourself created.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

P.S. It is unfortunate and discourteous that others posting on this string ignore your contributions to it, as it is a subject string that you, yourself created.

That coming from the master of courtesy, honesty and integrity????

Mat's original question:

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

I found a section in the code that states Romex must run through joists and not be stapled to the underside. Does this include crawl space installations. Romex in photos is hanging along the underside of some joists and running through punch outs in others. The whole thing is a rats nest.

Thank you
Mat

Was answered to a great extent by this:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Ken,

It is because that comment, which runs through to, and including, drawing Exhibit 334.1, is *all about protection from physical damage*, which, in case you have not yet noticed, is not what this discussion is about. The discussion has been about the use of NM-B (as differentiated from NMC-B) and its use in crawlspaces because of crawlspaces being damp locations.

However, if the mis-direction to that commentary in the Handbook is to bring this discussion to "protection from physical damage in crawlspaces", then, yes, I will have to agree that I was incorrect when I stated (in post #3 of this thread):


You are quite correct that ALL NMC CABLES IN CRAWLSPACES are required to be protected from physical damage similar to that protection provided in unfinished basements, and, in fact, that commentary points out that crawlspaces ARE MORE DANGEROUS than unfinished basements as regards to being subject to physical damage: "Section 334.15(C) was revised for the 2008 Code to include crawl spaces. Crawl spaces pose dangers similar to those of unfinished basements and in some case are more dangerous due to limited height." The commentary then continues on about protection from physical damage.

Thus, not only was I wrong about stating that protection from physical damage was not as needed in crawlspaces (I reasoned that would be the case because fewer people would go in crawlspaces than go in unfinished basements, therefor the risk was lower), when, in fact, the code has elevated the risk level due to "limited height".

SO, based on that acknowledgment, that the code is actually implying that crawlspaces need MORE ATTENTION TO PROTECTION FROM PHYSICAL DAMAGE than unfinished basements, what on earth makes you think the code would even consider relaxing its requirements regarding "damp locations" for those very same "limited height" 'elevated danger' crawl spaces?

The second question which arose from this post:
(My apologies for reposting this Fred, hopefully you will not get caught in the crapola being thrown at me - this is to help "answer" the thread.)

Originally Posted by Fred Warner

I don't see relief in the code just because the NM is in the crawl space. It still has to comply with Article 300, wiring methods.

Also, a crawl space might actually be determined to be a damp location and then there goes the "romex" anyway.

Originally Posted by mathew stouffer

Ok, I know this is going to add gas to the fire but the crawl space floor is very wet. Moreover, water is ponding in areas of the crawl space and there is mold on the ceiling of the crawl space.

Mat

I believe Mat answered the second question raised by Fred with that information.

THAT crawl space is not a "dry location".

Mat, I believe your questions had already been answered, but, at Watson's prodding, I combined the applicable posts to consolidate the questions and answers.

Hopefully this helps.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

That coming from the master of courtesy, honesty and integrity????

Dear Readers,

Send your complaints to: brian@hanntech.com
or PM member: Brian Hannigan
or click the REPORT button on the bottom right corner of the specific problematic poster's post.

I invite and enjoy your PMs but your concerns regarding posts by anyone other than myself should be addressed to our forum host.

Regards,
H.G.

A couple of observations ....

1- it appears the folks at Holt aren't too worried about any sort of Romex in nearly any crawl space; and,

2- Guys - and you know who you are- this juvenile bickering may be fun for you .... but it quickly becomes tedious for everyone else. If you have something on point to say, by all means sayit. Feel free to explain how you arrived at your decision. Such makes clear that you disagree with someone ... you need not suggest the other guy is 'this' or 'that.'

If someone says you're ugly, and your Mama dresses you funny - let it slide. Everyone else will be able to see what a fool the speaker is. Lincoln spoke on the topic of arguing with fools, and he's right .... it CAN be hard to tell the two of you apart.

Finally, remember that opinions are like fingers .... most have a couple handfulls of them! Don't expect everyone to hold the same you have, and there is no need for a 'last word.'

Originally Posted by John Steinke

2- Guys - and you know who you are- this juvenile bickering may be fun for you .... but it quickly becomes tedious for everyone else.

John,

Has become very tedious here too.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Dear Readers,

Send your complaints to: brian@hanntech.com
or PM member: Brian Hannigan
or click the REPORT button on the bottom right corner of the specific problematic poster's post.

I invite and enjoy your PMs but your concerns regarding posts by anyone other than myself should be addressed to our forum host.

One of the few times Watson and myself seem to agree on something.

Originally Posted by John Steinke

A couple of observations ....

1- it appears the folks at Holt aren't too worried about any sort of Romex in nearly any crawl space; and,.....

John, as long as the area is not a "damp location" I will agree. There are many on the Mike Holt site that agree NM-B is not permitted in a "damp location." If it's not a "damp location" and all other provisions of the code are met, there certainly is not a problem with using NM-B cable in a crawl space.

Originally Posted by Fred Warner

John, as long as the area is not a "damp location" I will agree. There are many on the Mike Holt site that agree NM-B is not permitted in a "damp location." If it's not a "damp location" and all other provisions of the code are met, there certainly is not a problem with using NM-B cable in a crawl space.

Fred,

I think almost all of us here are of the same opinion: That NM-B is not allowed in "damp locations" and that if a crawl space is a "damp location" then NM-B is not allowed there.

What it gets down to, I think, and which no one as answered (but many seem to refute out of hand) is whether or not a crawlspace is a "damp location", even whether a crawl space *can be* a "damp location".

In looking at some of the areas of rainfall across the use, with large areas receiving less than 8" of rain annually, those areas are likely 'drier, and drier more often, than most of the crawl spaces we see', therefore, if NM-B is not allowed to be used outside in those locations, which are "normally dry locations" because of the chance to exposure to rain, then and likewise, NM-B should not be used in most crawl spaces.

The only difference (and it is a big difference) is that those locations with limited rainfall also would have exposure to sunlight. However, if the NM-B were protected from sunlight in a PVC conduit, even in those areas, by virtue of being outside, that PVC conduit would be deemed a "wet location".

Which brings me back to: If a location *with less moisture* is deemed a "damp location" or a "wet location", how can any crawl space be deemed a "dry location"?

Yes, I have admitted that it is a big wake up call to presume that NM-B is not allowed in any crawl space, I have been trying to wake people up to that possibility for over well 10 years, and, yes, it would take a big change to either not use NM-B in a crawl space, or to make NM-B suitable for use in a crawl space, but ...

... that same "big wake up call" was done back when NM went from 60 degree C conductor insulation to 90 degree C conductor insulation for the sole basic purpose of allowing NM-B (NM at that time) to continue to be installed in attics.

Thus, the only real difference we are talking about between the two "big wake up call" issues is one was for an attic issue (temperature) and one is for a crawl space issue (moisture/dampness). And, yes, there were many who insisted that NM was fine in attic as it had been used in attics for decades - yep it sure had, should not have been, but it sure had been.

Hint: asked original poster a question about the ski season.

Assuming the property in question is near where the original poster's listed location is - this region has design parameters for excessive snow loads both roofs and ground.

Description of the instant crawl space indicates a less-than-dry location in-use.

Can we strive to keep the discussion on-topic to the OP when the OP has a fresh/real-time question regarding inspection to report generation. A new more general topic string can easily be created for a general discussion which takes a turn beyond the scope of the original poster's situation.

IMHO when the discussion on a specifically oriented instant inspection issue(s) takes a generalist turn (debate, etc.), I think we do our friend in the industry a disservice, especially if one has a report due or pending a return visit to the property. Can we keep strive to keep a focused more helpful-oriented response towards our brothers and sisters when they reach out for real-time assistance?

We might be all better served (especially the OP's need/time-frame) if we take the more general discussion to another string and keep the original string specific and on-point/on-topic specific to the OP, when the original poster indicates a real-time concern. We've all faced deadlines - and if one is subscribed to a string looking for some resources, opinions, answers - wouldn't/isn't it frustrating to get back to the topic on the board if that's what you're expecting and one finds otherwise?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Hint: asked original poster a question about the ski season.

Assuming the property in question is near where the original poster's listed location is - this region has design parameters for excessive snow loads both roofs and ground.

Description of the instant crawl space indicates a less-than-dry location in-use.

The mere fact that a crawl space is under a building located in a region of a state that has skiing is not in and of itself a reason to prohibit NM-B from a crawl space. The crawl space must be deemed to be a "wet location".

Originally Posted by Fred Warner

The mere fact that a crawl space is under a building located in a region of a state that has skiing is not in and of itself a reason to prohibit NM-B from a crawl space. The crawl space must be deemed to be a "wet location".

Absolutely Fred

I have been in swampy areas where the crawl space was dry as a bone year round. I have been in dry areas where half the crawls are damp to wet and the other half is dry as a bone.

Where I use to live in Mass there are homes with basements and those with crawls. Sometimes I would not put anything in some of those basements because of dampness (not water, just dampness) and then some crawls in New Hampshire or just the North East had crawls as dry as a bone.

You just don't know. The OP crawl is not only moist or damp but very wet with standing water.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

IMHO when the discussion on a specifically oriented instant inspection issue(s) takes a generalist turn (debate, etc.), I think we do our friend in the industry a disservice, especially if one has a report due or pending a return visit to the property. Can we keep strive to keep a focused more helpful-oriented response towards our brothers and sisters when they reach out for real-time assistance?

We might be all better served (especially the OP's need/time-frame) if we take the more general discussion to another string and keep the original string specific and on-point/on-topic specific to the OP, when the original poster indicates a real-time concern. We've all faced deadlines - and if one is subscribed to a string looking for some resources, opinions, answers - wouldn't/isn't it frustrating to get back to the topic on the board if that's what you're expecting and one finds otherwise?

Many here will disagree with your controlling nature of wanting to avoid that as, in many cases, the discussions which diverge from the original question lead to unasked questions and answers which are as important and informative as was the original question.

That is the way this board has SUCCESSFULLY operated from its inception, and it is the way this board will likely successfully operate and grow from now on too.

NOT having persons with a need control those things and put those types of restrictions ON OTHERS is what has made this board so SUCCESSFUL.

I vote to let this board continue to be so SUCCESSFUL in the manner in which it has been.

The purpose here is to ask questions, answer them, learn from each other, and NOT TO TRY TO CONTROL THE BOARD IN A MANNER IN WHICH ONE WANTS because they would like it done differently. This board has been successful, you are a new member, instead of trying to make this board *what you want*, you should be trying to make this board more successful in the way it has been operating in the past.

In fact, there have been many posts here stating that such diverging information has been most helpful in learning more.

Simply pointing out that the OP's contributions to the thread were seemingly oft ignored (with the notable exception of three contributors) and continued off-topic discussions and ad hominem rants were continuing to "pepper" some posts without apparent regard or acknowledgment of what the Original Poster had provided in additional feed-back.

Unlike SOME participants on THIS STRING, on this subject I have simply stated MY OPINION influenced OBSERVATION/CONCLUSION.

Unlike SOME PERSONS, I do NOT seek to CONTROL others. I am not trying to DIRECT others, I can only offer my OPINION and SUGGESTION, and/or RECOMMENDATION, and offer support or explanation as to what that was based upon. IMHO UNLIKE SOME I am doing my best to do so without personal attacks.

I do find (again MY OPINIONATED CONCLUSION) it to be UNFORTUNATE that SOMETIMES SOME PERSONS' participation on a topic string are less-than-helpful or appear to be in less-than-the-SPIRIT of the participation agreement.

The TIMELINESS and/or the WASTE OF TIME when the circumstances of a question or topic post is of a "time is of the essence" nature, (again MY OPINION! I FEEL SHOULD, (yes should as in do unto others, should) BE RESPECTED and their issue, concern, question, addressed, and their strings ought not be HIJACKED.

I recall language to the effect of on-point or on-topic direction on our host's sticky announcment and following post. With that in mind, and in that spirit, I spoke.

I honestly find the off-topic personal jabs, the speaking for OTHERS, the "garbage" distracting, distasteful, overwhelming, rude, unnecessary, and a waste of time (I have and do include myself in this criticism).

If I were the party having made such an inquiry on a time-sensitive basis, would have been discouraged and disgusted and given up on any hope of finding some helpful input, long before the OP did.

The spring thaw, run-off potential (location, location!) and the OPs description of the space were likewise not acknowledged while the arguments persisted over the theories and discussions about dry conditioned crawl spaces and minimally damp location unconditioned, naturally vented crawl spaces, when the OP indicated the circumstance in his second and third post. The third post from the OP indicated standing and pooling water and additional moisture/destructive concerns.

I was pointing out the climatic and geographical region, so as to get off the theoretical, hypothetical, the guessing and wild assumptions, and focus on/HIGHLIGHT the specifics with the known fact set provided by the original poster himself.

I tried to speak to that in my prior participation on this thread.

Perhaps OTHERS have different motive(s) with their participation on this and other threads on the board I DO NOT KNOW - I AM NOT TRYING to speak FOR others regarding their own motives, intentions, or meanings of their posts; I can only speak to my own.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Simply pointing out that the OP's contributions to the thread were seemingly oft ignored (with the notable exception of three contributors) and continued off-topic discussions and ad hominem rants were continuing to "pepper" some posts without apparent regard or acknowledgment of what the Original Poster had provided in additional feed-back.

Unlike SOME participants on THIS STRING, on this subject I have simply stated MY OPINION influenced OBSERVATION/CONCLUSION.

Unlike SOME PERSONS, I do NOT seek to CONTROL others. I am not trying to DIRECT others, I can only offer my OPINION and SUGGESTION, and/or RECOMMENDATION, and offer support or explanation as to what that was based upon. IMHO UNLIKE SOME I am doing my best to do so without personal attacks.

I do find (again MY OPINIONATED CONCLUSION) it to be UNFORTUNATE that SOMETIMES SOME PERSONS' participation on a topic string are less-than-helpful or appear to be in less-than-the-SPIRIT of the participation agreement.

The TIMELINESS and/or the WASTE OF TIME when the circumstances of a question or topic post is of a "time is of the essence" nature, (again MY OPINION! I FEEL SHOULD, (yes should as in do unto others, should) BE RESPECTED and their issue, concern, question, addressed, and their strings ought not be HIJACKED.

I fully agree, and you can delete your posts and remove those things you object to just like that.

I honestly find the off-topic personal jabs, the speaking for OTHERS, the "garbage" distracting, distasteful, overwhelming, rude, unnecessary, and a waste of time (I have and do include myself in this criticism).

Then why do you keep doing just that?

Such as your entire post.

Perhaps OTHERS have different motive(s) with their participation on this and other threads on the board I DO NOT KNOW - I AM NOT TRYING to speak FOR others regarding their own motives, intentions, or meanings of their posts; I can only speak to my own.

You certainly have in many of your posts.

However, as I said above, if you dislike personal rants THAT MUCH, you can remove A LOT OF THEM by simply deleting YOUR POSTS.

Cheers.

I am not the only one who understands that you are trying to control this board, since I posted that above, I have received PMs agreeing with me.

Watson, you are welcome to stay, I have said before that I see glimpses of brilliance in your posts, that if you would get off your high horse and come down and walk and talk with us you could be an asset to this board.

However, if you have been around as long as you have implied you have (I guess lurking before starting to post) then you would have known:

- a) No one controls the way the threads run out.

- b) That the way threads wonder and drift from the original question is a source of great education.

- c) That you would be smart enough to know that you could not come here and control the board in your fashion.

- d) That the board is bigger than one person can control.

- e) That you may not be c).

It's your call to either participate with the rest of us or keep on doing what you are doing - being totally disruptive.

Funny thing, that's not what the PMs I receive say, quite the opposite . To each his/her own.

Word

Word

Word

Word

Now, I got the last word in so know one else has to.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

To each his/her own.

Well, being as I am a "his", guess that leaves you as being a "her".

Sorry Ted, but Watson was just begging for that response.

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

Word

Word

Word

Word

Now, I got the last word in so know one else has to.

Did you mean "no" instead of "know"? There, I got the last word...
(Just kidding with you, Ted.)

Originally Posted by Fred Warner

Did you mean "no" instead of "know"? There, I got the last word...
(Just kidding with you, Ted.)

The "know" was just to leave an opening for anyone elses last word

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

The "know" was just to leave an opening for anyone elses last word

Ah Ha! So you suckered me in, eh? I'll be a little harder to catch next time!

Originally Posted by Ted Menelly

anyone elses last word

The Last Word: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/wo...649251033.aspx

Originally Posted by John Steinke

Really? Will wonders never cease!

Alll things equal, I'd rather see the cables stapled to the flats. The only question that remains is: do the wires now require running boards for protection?

The short take? Are we in a location where folks are likely to try to hang the laundry from the cables? If not, and the cables are stapled every other joist, no problem.

I was an electrician long before I was a home inspector. I was always taught never to drill through a micro lam beam. It looks as though the electrician at least attempted to use the pop outs in the beam but as any electrician can tell you, they never line up!

Originally Posted by JOSEPH OBRIEN

I was an electrician long before I was a home inspector. I was always taught never to drill through a micro lam beam. It looks as though the electrician at least attempted to use the pop outs in the beam but as any electrician can tell you, they never line up!

Interesting "teaching".

I see Weyerhaeuser TJIs non-vented and sawn lumber flanges. They are stamped with the CCMC number and a HUD 6/89 revision date of 07-27-06 in the photos.

Since you've brought it up, I'm not seeing a micro lam can you point it out?

Edit: corrected typo in hud spec rev date highlighted correction in red.

Not trying to get technical just posting as a humorous anecdote. I used the term micro lam as a generalized adjective for beams that are of that style (Not usual lumber such as a 2x10 for example). I know a micro lam is different then those but I was generalizing the holes that are pre-drilled for wiring and plumbing. They never line up and pulling feeds through in a nice, orderly, straight line is nearly impossible.

The framing method used is actually called "PRI," or 'performanceratedI-joists' - at least according to the Engineered Wood Association. In more common use, you may find these referred to as "TJI's"and the "Plywood Association."

A visit to their site APA - The Engineered Wood Association will lead you to the industry standard. The standard defines where holes may be made. Essentially, this standard says that small holes - such as those for wires and small pipes - can be made anywhere in the web.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Mathew Stouffer (Mat),

With the latest "wrinkle" of the pooled water and suspected fungus or mold in the previously described crawlspace ceiling/floor assembly above, it seems there are more important structural issues beyond the ripped non-circular or square holes, and the Chapter 3 wiring issues.

It looks to me that those are residential Weyerhaeuser TJI (R) Series Joists (Prefabricated Wood I-Joists). I cannot make see enough in the pictures to completely identify (size, type) except that it is obvious regarding manufacturer (hint CCMC number). From what I can make out from the photos they appear to be non-vented webs and sawn lumber flanges (as opposed to "Microllam(R) LVL or "TimberStrand(R) LSL). I recall them being "orange boxed" as "TJI (R) joists are intended for dry-use applications" in the now discontinued (for that vintage) specifiers.

Originally Posted by John Steinke

The framing method used is actually called "PRI," or 'performanceratedI-joists' - at least according to the Engineered Wood Association. In more common use, you may find these referred to as "TJI's"and the "Plywood Association."

A visit to their site APA - The Engineered Wood Association will lead you to the industry standard. The standard defines where holes may be made. Essentially, this standard says that small holes - such as those for wires and small pipes - can be made anywhere in the web.

John Steinke,

They are clearly marked and the markings are visable in the submitted photos. Registered Trademark Series Name and Manufacturer ARE identifiable via the CCMC number. The HUD standard/revision date also indicates their "vintage".

They are:

Residential Weyerhaeuser TJI (R)* Series Joists (Prefabricated Wood I-Joists).

As mentioned previously, from the images in the photographs they appear to be non-vented webs and the flanges appear to be sawn lumber, however that Weyerhaeuser "Series" includes vented webs and flanges made from other than sawn lumber as well.

Manufacturer's (in this case Weyerhaeuser's) instructions, specifications, limitations, etc. apply, including required engineering for deviations from same.

*Note: TJI (R) = the "(R)* denoting a registered trademark name.

TJI (R) Series Joists is not a common description which would include other manufacturers or specifications.

A more generalized more-inclusive term would be a more common one; in this case I-joist, "Performance Rated I-Joist", or "PRI" being "common". Calling a PRI or a TJI(R) a "Microllam(R)" wouldn't be correct (nor would calling a Joist a Beam). A more common more inclusive term would be "Engineered Lumber".


EDIT: Moved sentance to last postition for clarification, and highlighted in bold, blue color, and underlining for emphasis (hit submit instead of preview - UGH!).

"TJI" might be the brand name of Weyerhaeuser, but the industry standards, and the ANSI standards, define them as "performance rated I-joists."

Your argument is rather akin to saying 'that's not a motorcycle, that's a Harley!' Good marketing, perhaps - but bad logic.

Originally Posted by John Steinke

"TJI" might be the brand name of Weyerhaeuser, but the industry standards, and the ANSI standards, define them as "performance rated I-joists."

Your argument is rather akin to saying 'that's not a motorcycle, that's a Harley!' Good marketing, perhaps - but bad logic.

No I'm saying: "that's not JUST any motorcycle, THAT is a Harley-Davidson Motorcycle, and specifically it is a 2002 FLHRSEI Screamin' Eagle Road King, but from the color resolution, contrast and limited details visible in the photos I can't be sure if its Candy Brandywine with Flames or Purple Radical, and can't tell if it has Legend Air Ride Suspension.

And your saying its a motorcycle vehicle, and someone else is discussing jags.