This is on a pre-sheetrock inspection.
I see cut studs every now and then. I don’t usually make a big deal about them if it’s just one stud.
But on this home, about 30% of the studs were cut. Their solution was to put a sister board over the cut area.
What are y’alls opinion on these? Just curious.
Yes! They notched them to provide a plum surface for the finished rock.
They sistered them properly.
I’m amazed they went that far.
You will look like a fool if you do.
That makes sense. Thanks’
Typical stud straightening for a flush surface. No biggie.
Since the wire is recessed at least 1-1/4” from the edge of the stud, it DOES NOT require a plate.
I require them on all the home we have built.
But, I’m not paying any attention to you .
Lets not encourage inspectors to make false claims on their inspection reports.
Since the wire is recessed at least 1-1/4” from the edge of the stud, it **DOES NOT **require a plate.
That is for holes.
This wire is not in a hole it is in a slit. The wire could move then be hit by a screw or nail.
Additionally, the plate would help reinforce the stud at the slit somewhat.
You are kinda stupid ! Huh ?
Lets not encourage inspectors to make false claims on their inspection reports.
Since the wire is recessed at least 1-1/4” from the edge of the stud, it DOES NOT require a plate.
What you refer to as a “slit” is called a notch by proffessionals.
There could be a call out for an improper notch.
Notches in bearing wall studs may not exceed 25 percent of the stud’s width.
Notches in non-bearing walls can’t exceed 40 percent of their width.
We don’t know if it’s a bearing wall or not so the inspector would have to do a follow up.
NEC 300.4 dictates that a protective plate WILL BE USED in the situation Roy has pointed out.
I would certainly hope that you do report any improperly cut stud found, even just one?
The cable looks to have the required 1 1/4" clearance so a plate is not needed.
The cable is in a notch and not a bored hole. Specifically NEC 300.4(A)(2) covers this issue. Please explain how it does not as it is very clear in its description that a plate is required.
You are focusing on the notch, not the distance from the nailing surface that the code is.
You’re fixating on 1 1/4" distance which is the distance a bored hole must be from the surface of a member where the surface treatment will be applied. That is specified in NEC 300.4(A)(1) which deals with “Bored Holes”. What you are failing to see is NEC 300.4(A)(2) which deals with “Notches In Wood” and does not care about how far back the cable has been pushed and instead cares that the opening is closed with an appropriate protection plate so there is no chance the cable can be struck. This provision does not care about any specific distance from the face of the member.
If you do not own a copy of NFPA 70 (NEC) then you can view it for free here http://www.nfpa.org/nec/about-the-nec/free-online-access-to-the-nec-and-other-electrical-standards . Of course any Inspector that wants to quote the codes, and has any ability to do so, already owns a copy of NFPA 70.
Thanks for the link Manny. I signed up.
It cares about the recessed distance, otherwise a plate would be required regardless of the distance of a bored hole from the face.
I see how the answer to this question can be interpreted both ways. Apparently the NEC is silent on the distance when referring to a notch but clearly states 1 1/4" for holes therefore it can be inferred that 1 1/4" is adequate for a notch. Here’s the rub, with a bored hole the wire cannot feasibly ever get any closer than 1 1/4" because of the wood. On the other hand, there is nothing preventing the wire in a notch from moving closer, for whatever reason, to the nailing face therefore it would seem prudent to use a nail plate to protect the wire now and in the future if it did move. Was that the intent of the NEC? I certainly don’t know but it sure seems feasible. So, I’m with Manny on this but Jim has the technical experience.