Building Code and Building Construction - Questions and Answers
Or when you want to know how construction is supposed to be done.

|
AskCodeMan.com
|

Custom Search

Opinion on this GEC

Opinion on this GEC

New postby Marc M on Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:01 am

Jerry, do you think the electrician is using the water pipe as a ground or attempting to bond the water piping? If so, is this a splice in the GEC?
Issue with minimum separation between ground sources?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Marc M
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:24 am

Re: Opinion on this GEC

New postby Jerry Peck - Codeman on Mon Dec 26, 2011 11:09 pm

Hi Marc,

It is hard to tell from that photo just what they were trying to do, but I think .... first, how old is that installation? ... I think they are using that metal water piping as a ground, albeit not in the proper way.

That felxible metal conduit needs to be continuous and connected to ground at both ends ('all' ends if that flexible metal conduit is not continuous, i.e., has been cut at the water pipe - which brings up up my next question: is the grounding electrode controde conductor connected to the metal water pipe or just the flexible metal conduit?
Jerry Peck - CodeMan
AskCodeMan.com
Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
Construction and Code Consultant - Semi Retired
User avatar
Jerry Peck - Codeman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:06 pm

Re: Opinion on this GEC

New postby Marc M on Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:09 am

I don't have the install date but its a new square D panel board. I didn't see a cold water bond under the house anywhere except for the image I just enclosed. Its a CW bond on the "old" galvanized piping.
I don't know...I was just thinking that the installer may have just spliced it there at the front water supply to "kill two birds with one stone" CW bond and another ground.
Hey Jerry, hypothetically, if they were to use that cold water pipe as a ground, isn't it still too close to the ground rod?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Marc M
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:24 am

Re: Opinion on this GEC

New postby Jerry Peck - Codeman on Tue Dec 27, 2011 5:55 pm

Marc M wrote:Hey Jerry, hypothetically, if they were to use that cold water pipe as a ground, isn't it still too close to the ground rod?


Marc,

I will need to double check the wording in the code as the 6 feet spacing applies only to rod or plate electrodes, I just don't remember if that is to other rod or plate electrodes or to "other electrodes".
Jerry Peck - CodeMan
AskCodeMan.com
Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
Construction and Code Consultant - Semi Retired
User avatar
Jerry Peck - Codeman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:06 pm

Re: Opinion on this GEC

New postby Marc M on Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:41 pm

This it?


E3608.3 Rod, pipe and plate electrode requirements. Where practicable, rod, pipe and plate electrodes shall be embedded below permanent moisture level. Such electrodes shall be free from nonconductive coatings such as paint or enamel. Where more than one such electrode is used, each electrode of one grounding system shall be not less than 6 feet (1829 mm) from any other electrode of another grounding system. Two or more grounding electrodes that are effectively
bonded together shall be considered as a single grounding electrode system. That portion of a bonding jumper that is the sole connection to a rod, pipe or plate electrode shall not be required to be larger than 6 AWG copper or 4 AWG aluminum wire.
Marc M
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:24 am

Re: Opinion on this GEC

New postby Jerry Peck - Codeman on Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:02 pm

That is the IRC version but that does not contain the limitation which the NEC version contains. The NEC version states (basically) that a rod or plate electrode shall be at least 6 feet from any other rod or plate electrode - but does not contain the same separation distance from 'and other' electrode as stated in the IRC.
Jerry Peck - CodeMan
AskCodeMan.com
Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
Construction and Code Consultant - Semi Retired
User avatar
Jerry Peck - Codeman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:06 pm

Re: Opinion on this GEC

New postby Marc M on Tue Dec 27, 2011 10:32 pm

interesting...thanks
I'm going to have to check this out.
Marc M
 
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 10:24 am

Re: Opinion on this GEC

New postby Jerry Peck - Codeman on Wed Dec 28, 2011 9:20 pm

If California is not using the IRC, the IRC is not applicable. If California is using a residential code based on the IRC, then it may depend on what amendments/deletions there are to the base code and that section.

Some IRC based codes delete the electrical section and the electrical code is the NEC.
Jerry Peck - CodeMan
AskCodeMan.com
Construction Litigation Consultant - Retired
Construction and Code Consultant - Semi Retired
User avatar
Jerry Peck - Codeman
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1199
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:06 pm


Return to Electrical: Service Equipment, electrical panels, wiring, lighting, switches, receptacles, etc.



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests