GFI Receptacle - Hospital Corridors

[Keri_WW]

I did a hospital job a few years back where we had all corridor receptacles as GFI protected. I can't for the life of me remember where this requirement was given (code reference). Any idea?

Thanks,
Keri :grin::grin:

 

[roger]

I did a hospital job a few years back where we had all corridor receptacles as GFI protected. I can't for the life of me remember where this requirement was given (code reference). Any idea?

Thanks,
Keri :grin::grin:

Unless the corridors were considered wet locations there is no requirement for it.

Roger

 

[Microwatt]

This must have been in the specifications or it's a local requirement. The NEC says nothing. Around here we need critical circuits in the corridors but that is a Health Department requirement. Where is this?

 

[Keri_WW]

The hospital I was referring to was in North Carolina. I remember hearing the reason, which sounded accurate at the time of design, but that was a long time ago and I have since forgotten.

 

[steve66]

The only things I could think of would be "wet location" as Roger mentioned, or for vending machines.

But vending machines aren't allowed in a hospital corridor anyway (at least here they aren't), and many machines would have the GFCI on the cord.

Steve

 

[Keri_WW]

The only things I could think of would be "wet location" as Roger mentioned, or for vending machines.

Definitely not vending related. All of the corridor receptacles were GFI.

 

[steve66]

Are you sure it was GFI, and not tamper proof, or maybe emergency??

 

[brother]

Definitely not vending related. All of the corridor receptacles were GFI.

Like others said, unless its a local requirment or wet location, I can only think of it being a job spec. Maybe they look at it as a 'temporary' power for the janitors/cleaners or for vacuuming or maintenance/repair guys and such and gfci protection would be good idea then. Then it would fall under NEC 590.

 

[Keri_WW]

Are you sure it was GFI, and not tamper proof, or maybe emergency??

Yeah definitely, I have a copy of the design sheets. Thanks for all the replies.

 

[edd189]

Sometimes engineers can design above and beyond code minimums without citing a reason why.

 

[ceb58]

Over design or just me using the SWAG method. Could the corridors, in the event of something catastrophic, be used and considered as patient care area?

 

[roger]

Sometimes engineers can design above and beyond code minimums without citing a reason why.

Why would they do this besides driving the overall cost to the owner up?

Roger

 

[roger]

Over design or just me using the SWAG method.

Hello Curtis.

Roger

 

[ceb58]

Hello Curtis.

Roger

Are you ready for more snow?

 

[roger]

Are you ready for more snow?

Oh yeah, it's snowing right now. I wouldn't care except we have to have 4 large feeders pulled and terminated by Monday morning, but we have the weekend if tomorrow is snowed out.

How about yourself?

Roger

 

[ceb58]

Oh yeah, it's snowing right now. I wouldn't care except we have to have 4 large feeders pulled and terminated by Monday morning, but we have the weekend if tomorrow is snowed out.

How about yourself?

Roger

Were good, Wanda went and bought the legally requried milk and bread She saw 10 snow flakes this afternoon. Looking for a side job tomorrow and the weekend to avoid the honey-do-list.

 

[charlie b]

I am guessing that the corridor walls were made of standard drywall. Is that right? If so, then they would absolutely not be "wet" locations. So the requirement would not have originated by an NEC rule.

 

[dbuckley]

Why would they do this [design above and beyond code minimums] besides driving the overall cost to the owner up?

Because in the opinion of the engineer it is the right thing to do. And thats what the customer is employing an engineer for - to get the right design.

Put it another way - I keep hearing people chant "the NEC isn't a design manual" - thus you cant rely on the NEC for design, and thus minimum compliantly design should - most of the time - be inadequate.

The same thing using a little math - given the NEC provides "minimums", then the "average" design should always be in excess of the minimum.

 

[roger]

Because in the opinion of the engineer it is the right thing to do.

Why is that his opinion? Is it because the designer doesn't know they aren't necessary so he is going with the CYA design in these corridors?

And thats what the customer is employing an engineer for - to get the right design

And the right design is not necessarily over design.

Put it another way - I keep hearing people chant "the NEC isn't a design manual" - thus you cant rely on the NEC for design, and thus minimum compliantly design should - most of the time - be inadequate.

So, in your opinion the "minimum" means borderline dangerous? The NEC is already well over minimum safety so when the term "minimum requirement" is used in describing it, it does not mean it is a cheap, dangerous, or irresponsible installation when it is followed to a tee

The same thing using a little math - given the NEC provides "minimums", then the "average" design should always be in excess of the minimum.

So if someone wanted to buy a Crown Vic you would tell them they need a Lincoln simply because it cost more?

Roger

 

[iwire]

Because in the opinion of the engineer it is the right thing to do. And thats what the customer is employing an engineer for - to get the right design.

I agree but I think the engineer, if they feel GFCIs are needed in the corridor should be able to explain why they feel that way.

The same thing using a little math - given the NEC provides "minimums", then the "average" design should always be in excess of the minimum.

I cannot agree with the thought that the design should always be in excess of the minimum.

Anyone can throw money at a problem, an engineer or other design professional should be able to determine when the minimum is enough to satisfy both the customers needs and the public's safety.