Greetings,

I have a row home (townhouse) which shares a common brick wall with the
neighboring house. The wall is coated with about 1/2" of mortar
followed by a skim coat of plaster and then 100 years of paint. I need
to install some outlets along the wall.

My plan was to trench out shallow trenches along the wall and into the
brick. I would install FMC (1/2") which would come almost to the
surface. I would then go back over with mortar, a skim coat of gypsum,
and paint. Larger holes would be knocked out for boxes (do I need to
use special in mortar boxes?).

Is there anything wrong with what I propose?
Example things that could be wrong (partial list)
a) Steel or Al FMC is not suitable.
b) The depth is not suitable.
c) I need to additionally derate the FMC and I don't know it.
d) I'm not allow to make holes in the fire wall big enough for the
boxes.
e) ...

Am I going about this properly? What other things do I need to
consider?

Thank you for your input,
William

PS: NO. I do not want to use surface mount if I can avoid it.

PS: NO. I do not want to use surface mount if I can avoid it.

Then use floor moounted outlets,
or glue furring strips to the wall, run armored conduit behind it,
and cover it with sheetrock. Don't mess with the partition wall.

Greetings,

Thank you for your post but I still don't have enough information to
make a decision.

Don't mess with partition walls because it's a job you don't know how
to handle or don't mess with them because it's not allowed? I am not
looking for "another way" I am looking to attempt to perform the job in
the manner specified safely and to code (building, electrical, and
otherwise) if possible.

Hope to hear more,
William

" wrote in message

Don't mess with partition walls because it's a job you don't know how
to handle or don't mess with them because it's not allowed? I am not
looking for "another way" I am looking to attempt to perform the job in
the manner specified safely and to code (building, electrical, and
otherwise) if possible.

Cutting into a structural firewall can be a violation of the code. I'd look
for other way, either surface or floor mounted.

" wrote:

Greetings,

Thank you for your post but I still don't have enough information to
make a decision.

Don't mess with partition walls because it's a job you don't know how
to handle or don't mess with them because it's not allowed? I am not
looking for "another way" I am looking to attempt to perform the job in
the manner specified safely and to code (building, electrical, and
otherwise) if possible.


Talk to local building permitting bunch--they'll tell you the exact
skinny for both your specific structure and locale...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:fQCte.5$Z.0@trndny05...

" wrote in
message

Don't mess with partition walls because it's a job
you don't know how
to handle or don't mess with them because it's not
allowed? I am not
looking for "another way" I am looking to attempt to
perform the job in
the manner specified safely and to code (building,
electrical, and
otherwise) if possible.

Cutting into a structural firewall can be a violation
of the code. I'd look for other way, either surface
or floor mounted.


Besides, do I recall that this was a condo? There
might be association requirements stating that you're
not to touch that wall. That hurdle out of the way,
any insurance or bank problems with it? THEN, I'd go
to your local code enforcement and ask there. The best
you could get here is experience, good as it may be,
but NOT for your particular locale. NEC applies of
course, but many local codes go beyond that.

JMO, but I think you need those items crossed off
before you go too much further with the rest of the
plan; they could make it all a minor or major detail.

HTH,
PopS

Thank you for your post but I still don't have enough information to
make a decision.

Don't mess with partition walls because it's a job you don't know how
to handle or don't mess with them because it's not allowed? I am not

Both. You almost certainly aren't allowed to mess with it,
and that wall is not just a fire-barrier, it's part of the
structure of the building that's designed to reduce noise,
and resist vertical, earthquake, and wind loads. If you're
having to ask about it here, you don't know enough about
what it's doing and what effect your modifications will have
on the various roles that wall is expected to play.

And for certain, nobody out on the internet is in a position
to make a better guess.

looking for "another way" I am looking to attempt to perform the job in
the manner specified safely and to code (building, electrical, and
otherwise) if possible.

If the first idea that's in your head is wedged so firmly that
you can't get it out, then hire a professional to do the evaluation
an subsequent work. Otherwise, let go of that idea, and come up
with a new one, because hacking into the partition-wall with a
masonry saw on your own hook is in no way a good idea.

--Goedjn

Greetings,

It is not a condo. It is a single family home. I own the houses on
both sides of this house. There is not a bank problem because there is
no mortgage on either home. There is no insurance problem because I
don't carry insurance on the home (I am not required to and I don't).
Yes, I do have an umbrella policy for my business.

Hope this helps,
William

Greetings,

Why are you so sure that I am not allowed to mess with it? If the
firewall is 10" thick and I make a 2 inch deep trough and later fill it
in with mortar (and some outlet box holes) it won't change the
structural integrity. It won't make it so the neighbors can hear
through the wall. It won't change the fire rating to less than two
sheets of 5/8" drywall which is used for partition walls between houses
I have seen in the past. In short, I know it is probably safe. I am
wondering about the code issues. Just because something is safe
doesn't mean it complies with code. Of course local code could say
ANYTHING but I am not asking if this violates local codes that no one
here could know about. I am asking if it violates national codes or if
(for some reason I cannot think of) there is in fact a safety concern.


Why are you so sure everyone on the Internet is dumb and cannot provide
helpful advice? Why can't I tackle a project that I don't already know
how to complete before I start? Plenty of people complete projects
safely that they knew very little about before they started.

Update on materials used:
I have found some PVC coated MC suitable for direct burial in concrete
which has a smaller OD than 1/2" FMC so I have switched to using PVC
coated MC with concrete tight connectors.

Hope this helps,
William

" wrote in message
Of course local code could say
ANYTHING but I am not asking if this violates local codes that no one
here could know about. I am asking if it violates national codes or if
(for some reason I cannot think of) there is in fact a safety concern.


Why are you so sure everyone on the Internet is dumb and cannot provide
helpful advice? Why can't I tackle a project that I don't already know
how to complete before I start? Plenty of people complete projects
safely that they knew very little about before they started.

Rather that take advice from the people you are criticizing, ask your
building inspector. He will know the codes, he will know if it is allowed.
He may also know an easy way to do it.

" wrote:

Greetings,

Why are you so sure that I am not allowed to mess with it?

If you would read the replies, it's not been stated unequivocally that
you can't, merely that there are strong possibilities that no one on
usenet can know of that your local code/building inspector may not
approve. Nor can anyone here w/o seeing tell whether your assumptions
regarding the effect on the wall are, in fact, true. Good proability,
but not certain...

....
wondering about the code issues. Just because something is safe
doesn't mean it complies with code. Of course local code could say
ANYTHING but I am not asking if this violates local codes that no one
here could know about. I am asking if it violates national codes or if
(for some reason I cannot think of) there is in fact a safety concern.

For the reasons outlined above, no one here can unequivocally answer
that question as posed, either. And, only your local code is of
significance in judging whether your proposed modification(s) meet code,
anyway, so why not just ask?

Why are you so sure everyone on the Internet is dumb and cannot provide
helpful advice?

In this case, there's just not enough info to really provide a
definitive answer remotely and it would be much simpler and more
effective to just ask locally...

Why can't I tackle a project that I don't already know
how to complete before I start? Plenty of people complete projects
safely that they knew very little about before they started.

Nobody even came close to saying that you can't. You can find out the
"how" for your particular situation easily locally...

Greetings,

When I ask a building inspector they generally just tell me a specific
way to do it. The way "suggested" by the inspector way might not be
the best way for my situation, might cost extra, might be extra work,
might reduce the overall quality of the job but after they tell me "do
it like this" then I am stuck. For instance, the inspector could say
"why don't you just put up furring strips" and then, even if there were
many other "legal" "better" options I would appear to be arguing with
him to do otherwise. I want to come to the building inspector with a
sound, code complete plan which works and doesn't have holes. The
inspector will then approve my plan or site the local code I am
violating and I will modify accordingly.

The only people I ever criticize here are naysayers. If I say, "How do
I do XYZ" and someone says "Call a pro." or "You can't." but doesn't
explain to give further depth of understanding then yes, I might
criticize them. If someone says "you're too dumb to do that job" or
"no one that uses the Internet could ever help" then I will definitely
say something in response. I have successfully completed every job I
have ever asked about on alt.home.repair. So yes, I probably can and
will do that job. I might change my plans or methods based on input
from alt.home.repair and elsewhere -- but the job is going to get done.
(PS: I am very happy to know that I can't do XYZ if someone says why.
I am especially happy to know if they site specifically why and give a
reference. If someone JUST says "you can't" for all I know they are
wrong and my knowledge of the situation has not been increased.)

There are many people on alt.home.repair who I have found to be very
very helpful. A Mr. Miller and several others come to mind (don't want
to list because I am sure I will leave someone good out). Some people
are also hit and miss. I enjoy reading their thoughts even if I don't
always agree with them. It is nice to get a second opinion. It is
even nice to have a better understanding of common misconceptions.

Hope this helps,
William

Greetings,

A) Of course no one can know what my local inspector will be thinking.
I am therefore asking about breaking other-than-local electrical, fire,
and building codes.
B) Yes. In fact someone here did say that I didn't understand it and
that I needed to hire a pro:
"If you're having to ask about it here, you don't know enough about
what it's doing and what effect your modifications will have on the
various roles that wall is expected to play ... If the first idea
that's in your head is wedged so firmly that you can't get it out, then
hire a professional to do the evaluation an subsequent work. "
C) If you need additional information, even a photo of a wall (for
whatever help it may be) just ask. I have attempted to supply all
relevant info without supplying fluff but if I left something out just
ask.
D) If it helps pretend local code doesn't exist where I am because I am
the chief of an indian reservation and I set local code. However, I
want my building insured by a national insurance company and I want to
ensure that they are happy with the work because it doesn't violate
well known national codes. If this pretend situation causes additional
problems for you then just ignore it.

Hope this helps,
William

You don't know what you are doing. You don't know the local code. You
won't hire a pro. You want free advice from people who may have little to no
knowledge of your particular job, the local building code, et c. And you
accuse the voice of sanity of being a naysayer.
Use conduit.

Dave M.

Greetings,

You say "Use conduit" but there is no additional information as to why.
Is there something wrong with PVC coated MC? The MC is MUCH easier to
use than anything else because I only have to go as deep as the brick
for most of the run. I will try to post some photos in the next couple
hours.

William

I understand the situation. Flexible metallic conduit cannot be embedded in
masonry, but you can certainly use EMT. I suggest that you use 4" square x
1 1/2" deep electrical boxes with a quarter inch raised tile ring. Cutting
back the brick to make a nice clean groove will be time consuming. I'm not
sure of an easy way to do this except maybe with a hand grinder equipped
with a masonry blade.

I've never used PVC coated MC cable embedded in concrete. It's definitely a
good way to go and article 330.10(10) permits it.


John Grabowski
http://www.mrelectrician.tv




" wrote in message
oups.com...
Greetings,

I have a row home (townhouse) which shares a common brick wall with the
neighboring house. The wall is coated with about 1/2" of mortar
followed by a skim coat of plaster and then 100 years of paint. I need
to install some outlets along the wall.

My plan was to trench out shallow trenches along the wall and into the
brick. I would install FMC (1/2") which would come almost to the
surface. I would then go back over with mortar, a skim coat of gypsum,
and paint. Larger holes would be knocked out for boxes (do I need to
use special in mortar boxes?).

Is there anything wrong with what I propose?
Example things that could be wrong (partial list)
a) Steel or Al FMC is not suitable.
b) The depth is not suitable.
c) I need to additionally derate the FMC and I don't know it.
d) I'm not allow to make holes in the fire wall big enough for the
boxes.
e) ...

Am I going about this properly? What other things do I need to
consider?

Thank you for your input,
William

PS: NO. I do not want to use surface mount if I can avoid it.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH JOHN.

I have some photos up. Please note that not all work will be exactly
like in the photos but it should provide some basic idea. Also note
that the PVC coated MC and staples will be completely covered by the
mortar before the gypsum layer even though it is hard to tell because
of lack of depth perception in the photos. Elsewhere in the house I
WILL have to cut into the brick. I used a 3.5" deep concrete embeded
device box for this outlet but I could easily switch to a more shallow
box. I have about 40 of these things to do in total.

http://www.universityofsavanna.com/f...FCI%20Circuit/

or

http://tinyurl.com/9acd8

Thanks again John,
William

" wrote:

THANK YOU VERY MUCH JOHN.

I have some photos up. Please note that not all work will be exactly
like in the photos but it should provide some basic idea. Also note
that the PVC coated MC and staples will be completely covered by the
mortar before the gypsum layer even though it is hard to tell because
of lack of depth perception in the photos. ...

But how deep? I don't think you can just bury only thinly w/o
protection to prevent the nail somebody tries to drive??? That's why
the EMT was suggested, I think and why I'd ask a local...

Greetings,

I think the 1 1/4" rule is specifically for framing or wood and does
not apply in the case of masonry but I could be wrong? If there is
another rule covering minimum depth for this application I am not
aware. If the walls were plaster I think I could plaster plain MC
directly into them. I could always turn the trench into a "small,
thin, section of plastered wall". Logically I don't see why I would
need to embed the PVC coated MC deeper if the trench was filled with
mortar? That doesn't mean there isn't a rule but I am not aware of it.

William

" wrote:

Greetings,

I think the 1 1/4" rule is specifically for framing or wood and does
not apply in the case of masonry but I could be wrong? If there is
another rule covering minimum depth for this application I am not
aware. If the walls were plaster I think I could plaster plain MC
directly into them. I could always turn the trench into a "small,
thin, section of plastered wall". Logically I don't see why I would
need to embed the PVC coated MC deeper if the trench was filled with
mortar? That doesn't mean there isn't a rule but I am not aware of it.

William

That's why you need to ask locally...

Greetings,

Based on what I can determine there is no minimum depth for my
application specified within the NEC. I am getting to work-- with the
materials and methods specified. I will check back a couple of times
just to make certain no one had any deal-breaking news.

Thank you all again,
William

William, read article 300.4(E). I'm not sure it applies in your situation,
but I would ask the electrical inspector if he would accept the MC cable
without protection in a masonry covering.



" wrote in message
oups.com...
Greetings,

Based on what I can determine there is no minimum depth for my
application specified within the NEC. I am getting to work-- with the
materials and methods specified. I will check back a couple of times
just to make certain no one had any deal-breaking news.

Thank you all again,
William

William,

Sorry, I was too brief. Leave the wall alone. Run your wiring outside of
the wall in nice looking, painted conduit.

Dave M.

wrote:
Greetings,

Based on what I can determine there is no minimum depth for my
application specified within the NEC. I am getting to work-- with the
materials and methods specified. I will check back a couple of times
just to make certain no one had any deal-breaking news.

Thank you all again,
William

This has been an interesting thread. I'm not sure why you don't want
to talk to your building inspector. Usually that's because someone is
either afraid of them or afraid that what they are doing won't pass
muster.

If you come up with a "perfect" solution that isn't specifically
spelled out in the code, and the inspector shoots the idea down, even
though you know without any doubt in your mind that it's okay, what are
you going to do? No one here can second guess your building inspector.
He might be a push over or he might make your project a nightmare
because you're not listening (there is some evidence that that
happens).

Good luck with it.

R

Greetings,

I went back and read 300.4(E) and it seems almost certain that it does
not apply.

Uses permitted for MC cable Article 330.10 (11) include "In dry
locations and embedded in plaster finish on brick or other masonry
except in wet locations" which would be in direct conflict with
300.4(E) if it did apply to such situations. Mortar on brick is also
not simular to the finishings listed in 300.4(E). The finishings
listed in 300.4(E) require fasteners and thus the 1 1/4" rule.

Thanks again,
William

PS: I will let you know what the inspector says (in the next 30 days).
I fully expect it to pass.

You say "Use conduit" but there is no additional information as to why.
Is there something wrong with PVC coated MC? The MC is MUCH easier to
use than anything else because I only have to go as deep as the brick
for most of the run. I will try to post some photos in the next couple
hours.


If you're not burrying the cable 1.5" deep into the wall, you want
metal between it (the cable) and the wall surface, so not using
metal conduit means having to trench deeper than you otherwise would.

Greetings,

I think I have mentioned these things this in the past but I will say
them again. Inspectors are emotional beings and, because they can make
your life easy or hard, you need to keep their feelings in mind. Just
like with other professions some are great people trying to help you
accomplish a safe job efficiently -- but some, sadly, are plagued with
inspectoritis.

One common symptom of inspectoritis is when inspectors want things done
how they say instead of simply in a safe manner leaving the specifics
to the contractor. I don't want to give my inspector a chance to
specify how I "could" do this job because it might be beyond his
ability not to turn that "could" in his mind into a "must".

Another common symptom of inspectoritis is filling in the blanks when
the inspector is not 100% sure of the rules and sticking to it. I now
know for instance that 300.4(E) does NOT apply in my situation. The
inspector might say something about 300.4(E) and I could now explain
exactly why it does not apply on the spot and the inspector might be
willing to change his mind right then and there because he had not yet
voiced a firm decision. If, on the other hand, I had called the
inspector and he shot down the idea based upon 300.4(E) and then later
I called him back up and told him why he was wrong what do you think my
chances would be?

I think that this situation is handled by the code and because of input
from John Grabowski and others I now have a much better understanding
of exactly where and how it is addressed throughout the NEC. If the
inspector shoots it down because of something I missed in the NEC and I
am in the wrong then the worst that could happen is I must protect the
cable with a plate. The inspector currently has no reason to make up a
rule to fail it, in part because I have been careful not to allow such
a situation to arise.

Hope this helps,
William

Greetings,

I believe there is no minimum cable depth for my application. Please
see my other posts.

William

one wonders why you brought the question to usenet to begin with.
from what i can see all you've done is berate people giving you answers as
best they can,
except for the one person who gave you an answer in line with your original
thinking.

why even ask if you have the answers?

I find it very interesting that wdeans has stopped quoting people and
just posts unattributed responses. It kind of fits in with the talking
and not listening mentality, which is apparently how he wants to
approach his building inspector. Anyone care to guess how your
friendly neighborhood building inspector will react to such an
approach?

R

RicodJour wrote:
I find it very interesting that wdeans has stopped quoting people and
just posts unattributed responses. It kind of fits in with the talking
and not listening mentality

Which is to say; Webtv mentality.

Greetings,

All of my responses are attributed. I can see who I responded to in a
tree on my news viewer. If you cannot tell who I am responding to on
your viewer it is not because the information is not available. I have
included the tree below for you.

1 Jun 20
2 Goedjn Jun 20
3 Jun 20
4 Edwin Pawlowski Jun 20
5 Pop Jun 20
6 Jun 20
7 Duane Bozarth Jun 20
8 Goedjn Jun 20
9 Jun 20
10 Edwin Pawlowski Jun 20
11 Jun 20
12 David Martel Jun 20
13 Jun 20
14 David Martel Jun 21
15 Goedjn Jun 21
16 Jun 21
17 Jun 21
18 RicodJour Jun 21
19 G Henslee Jun 21
20 Duane Bozarth Jun 20
21 Jun 20
22 John Grabowski Jun 20
23 Jun 20
24 Duane Bozarth Jun 20
25 Jun 20
26 Duane Bozarth Jun 20
27 Jun 21
28 John Grabowski Jun 21
29 Jun 21
30 RicodJour Jun 21
31 Jun 21

In Reply To:
RicodJour Jun 21, 4:46 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
Date: 21 Jun 2005 13:46:32 -0700
Subject: wiring up a brick wall

I find it very interesting that wdeans has stopped quoting people and
just posts unattributed responses. It kind of fits in with the talking
and not listening mentality, which is apparently how he wants to
approach his building inspector. Anyone care to guess how your
friendly neighborhood building inspector will react to such an
approach?

R

wrote:
Greetings,


snipped your bull****

Greetings,

Learn to quote you condescending prick.

Greetings,

Goedjn says:
If you're not burrying the cable 1.5" deep into the wall, you want
metal between it (the cable) and the wall surface, so not using
metal conduit means having to trench deeper than you otherwise would.

I believe he means a 1/16" metal plate is required by 300.4(E) if the
cable is not at least 1 1/4 inches below the surface of a trench? If
this is what he means then I have already stated why I thought 300.4(E)
didn't apply and he is invited to reply further (perferably in that
sub-thread) if he thinks it does and can state why. If he is not
referring to 300.4(E) then what rule does he mean?

Thanks,
William

wrote: [top posting corrected]
RicodJour wrote:

I find it very interesting that wdeans has stopped quoting people and
just posts unattributed responses. It kind of fits in with the talking
and not listening mentality, which is apparently how he wants to
approach his building inspector. Anyone care to guess how your
friendly neighborhood building inspector will react to such an
approach?

All of my responses are attributed. I can see who I responded to in a
tree on my news viewer. If you cannot tell who I am responding to on
your viewer it is not because the information is not available.

If nothing else, you're consistent. A newsgroup is not all about you
and your needs. It is about the free exchange of information. The
fact that your posts fall in a tree doesn't mean they are attributed.
Certain conventions make it easier for people to follow a thread, pick
it up in the middle and read single posts with comprehension regarding
the circumstances. Your, for lack of a better word, technique of
posting unattributed responses, not quoting the posts you're replying
to and the like, and assuming that someone has followed the thread from
the beginning, and remembers all the details over a period of what may
be days or weeks, is unrealistic and ignores the people that will be
searching this newsgroup in years to come.

There's no need to reply, but if you feel compelled, don't top post.
That's another one of those conventions.

R

wrote:
Greetings,

Goedjn says:
If you're not burrying the cable 1.5" deep into the wall, you want
metal between it (the cable) and the wall surface, so not using
metal conduit means having to trench deeper than you otherwise would.

I believe he means a 1/16" metal plate is required by 300.4(E) if the
cable is not at least 1 1/4 inches below the surface of a trench? If
this is what he means then I have already stated why I thought 300.4(E)
didn't apply and he is invited to reply further (perferably in that
sub-thread) if he thinks it does and can state why. If he is not
referring to 300.4(E) then what rule does he mean?

Thanks,
William

See? It's not hard. You quoted, attributed and didn't top post.
Excellent.

If you don't mind me asking, why are you replying to Goedjn and asking
him for clarification using "he" instead of "you"?

R

" wrote in message
ups.com...
Greetings,

I think the 1 1/4" rule is specifically for framing or wood and does
not apply in the case of masonry but I could be wrong? If there is
another rule covering minimum depth for this application I am not
aware. If the walls were plaster I think I could plaster plain MC
directly into them. I could always turn the trench into a "small,
thin, section of plastered wall". Logically I don't see why I would
need to embed the PVC coated MC deeper if the trench was filled with
mortar? That doesn't mean there isn't a rule but I am not aware of
it.

William


Here's where it could get interesting, based on 1999 NEC Article 225,
Outside branch circuits and feeders.

225-20 states "mechanical protection of conductors on buildings,
structures, or poles shall be as provided for services in Section
230-50

Going to section 230-50. "Protection of open conductors and cables
against damage-above ground", Section 230-50(b) exception: Type MI and
Type MC cable shall be permitted within 10 ft of grade level where not
exposed to physical damage or where protected in accordance with
section 300-5(d) .

Section 300-5(d) refers to the minimum cover requirements for direct
buried cable...

Assuming this hasn't changed in the latest NEC, I leave the
interpretation to the rest of you...

"Rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

" wrote in message
ups.com...
Greetings,

I think the 1 1/4" rule is specifically for framing or wood and
does
not apply in the case of masonry but I could be wrong? If there
is
another rule covering minimum depth for this application I am not
aware. If the walls were plaster I think I could plaster plain MC
directly into them. I could always turn the trench into a "small,
thin, section of plastered wall". Logically I don't see why I
would
need to embed the PVC coated MC deeper if the trench was filled
with
mortar? That doesn't mean there isn't a rule but I am not aware
of
it.

William


Here's where it could get interesting, based on 1999 NEC Article
225,
Outside branch circuits and feeders.

225-20 states "mechanical protection of conductors on buildings,
structures, or poles shall be as provided for services in Section
230-50

Going to section 230-50. "Protection of open conductors and cables
against damage-above ground", Section 230-50(b) exception: Type MI
and
Type MC cable shall be permitted within 10 ft of grade level where
not
exposed to physical damage or where protected in accordance with
section 300-5(d) .

Section 300-5(d) refers to the minimum cover requirements for direct
buried cable...

Assuming this hasn't changed in the latest NEC, I leave the
interpretation to the rest of you...

Ooops-my mistake! I thought you were running outlets on the OUTSIDE.
Staying up too late, I guess...

Thank you for taking the time to post Rick. I am sorry that I was not
more clear that the outlets were inside because you clearly put work
into your response. I have some photos up at the URL below which will
hopefully give a clear notion of what is going on.

http://tinyurl.com/9acd8

William