Grounding Electrode Conductor run on face of joists

[jxofaltrds]

Parallel to one joist or perpendicular to all of them, you are still following the surface of the building.

It is definitely a grey area because it has never been an issue in my neck of the woods.

Of course it is also true that I live down here close to the New Mexico boarder and if we don't like the way the new sheriff in town interprets grey areas we just tie him up and head off to the badlands.

Air is not part of the building surface. That is why running boards are used like in 334.

NM
334.15 Exposed Work. In exposed work, except as provided
in 300.11(A), cable shall be installed as specified in
334.15(A) through (C).
(A) To Follow Surface. Cable shall closely follow the surface
of the building finish or of running boards.

 

[infinity]

No it can not be on the bottom of a joist. Nope for short.

Edit:

(D) Cables and Raceways Parallel to Framing Members
and Furring Strips. In both exposed and concealed
locations, where a cable- or raceway-type wiring method is
installed parallel to framing members, such as joists,
rafters, or studs, or is installed parallel to furring strips, the
cable or raceway shall be installed and supported so that the
nearest outside surface of the cable or raceway is not less
than 32 mm (11?4 in.) from the nearest edge of the framing
member or furring strips where nails or screws are likely to
penetrate. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the
cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by
nails or screws by a steel plate, sleeve, or equivalent at least
1.6 mm (1?16 in.) thick.

A single conductor is not a raceway or cable so that wouldn't really apply.

Parallel to one joist or perpendicular to all of them, you are still following the surface of the building.

It is definitely a grey area because it has never been an issue in my neck of the woods.

That's what it boils down to, the interpretation of "along the surface of the building construction". If I really had to run the GEC in this fashion I would just use a #4 to remove the interpretive issues.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

No it can not be on the bottom of a joist. Nope for short.

It can be on the bottom of the joist if it runs parallel with the joist, IMO. I think that is what Texie was saying. There would be an issue running it perpendicular to the joist. I sensed a bit of confusion here so using parallel and perpendicular explains it clearer.

 

[infinity]

It can be on the bottom of the joist if it runs parallel with the joist, IMO. I think that is what Texie was saying. There would be an issue running it perpendicular to the joist. I sensed a bit of confusion here so using parallel and perpendicular explains it clearer.

Mike makes a good argument to support your position in post #21.

 

[smallfish]

Why by using a #4 removes the interpretive issues?

That's what it boils down to, the interpretation of "along the surface of the building construction". If I really had to run the GEC in this fashion I would just use a #4 to remove the interpretive issues. (from post #22)

Thanks

 

[infinity]

Why by using a #4 removes the interpretive issues?

That's what it boils down to, the interpretation of "along the surface of the building construction". If I really had to run the GEC in this fashion I would just use a #4 to remove the interpretive issues. (from post #22)

Thanks

Take a look at the actual code wording in post #2.

 

[jxofaltrds]

A single conductor is not a raceway or cable so that wouldn't really apply.



That's what it boils down to, the interpretation of "along the surface of the building construction". If I really had to run the GEC in this fashion I would just use a #4 to remove the interpretive issues.

Correct. I was using 334 as an another example to show what running with the structure is.

It can be on the bottom of the joist if it runs parallel with the joist, IMO. I think that is what Texie was saying. There would be an issue running it perpendicular to the joist. I sensed a bit of confusion here so using parallel and perpendicular explains it clearer.

On the bottom is considered subject to damage because it is a nailing surface. Like the 'face' of a stud. If you staple on the side of a joist the GEC still must be (even thought is not stated) installed like NM in 334.

Wait stay with me here.

in (B)
A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from
exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run
along the surface of the building construction without .......

What is free? This is were we have to go to 250.2 Definitions.

Nothing there. So we go to 100.

Nothing there. So we go to 90.

90.1 Purpose.
(A) Practical Safeguarding. The purpose of this Code is
the practical safeguarding of persons and property from
hazards arising from the use of electricity.

What is the practical safeguarding that we are trying to give the GEC?

We go to 90.4 Enforcement. OK What decision do we make that is reasonable and meets the intent of the code.

110.36. Not a circuit conductor.

230.50. Nope.

240.30. Nope.

250.64. Yes but we are back were we started. Keep looking.

250.120 Equipment Grounding Conductor Installation. Kinda of similar so lets read it.
(C) Equipment Grounding Conductors Smaller Than 6
AWG. Where not routed with circuit conductors as permitted
in 250.130(C) and 250.134(B) Exception No. 2, equipment
grounding conductors smaller than 6 AWG shall be
protected from physical damage by an identified raceway or
cable armor unless installed within hollow spaces of the
framing members of buildings or structures and where not
subject to physical damage.

If it was run with the circuit conductors the EGC would be considered not subject to physical damage.

The example that we (I) am turning this installation down on is a residence so it probably uses NM. So I go to 334 to show the EC why I think the way I do.

334.15 Exposed Work. In exposed work, except as provided
in 300.11(A), cable shall be installed as specified in
334.15(A) through (C).

(A) To Follow Surface. Cable shall closely follow the surface
of the building finish or of running boards.

(C) In Unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces. Where
cable is run at angles with joists in unfinished basements
and crawl spaces, it shall be permissible to secure cables
not smaller than two 6 AWG or three 8 AWG conductors
directly to the lower edges of the joists. Smaller cables
shall be run either through bored holes in joists or on running
boards. Nonmetallic-sheathed cable installed on the
wall of an unfinished basement shall be permitted to be
installed in a listed conduit or tubing or shall be protected
in accordance with 300.4. Conduit or tubing shall be provided
with a suitable insulating bushing or adapter at the
point the cable enters the raceway. The sheath of the
nonmetallic-sheathed cable shall extend through the conduit
or tubing and into the outlet or device box not less than
6 mm (1?4 in.). The cable shall be secured within 300 mm
(12 in.) of the point where the cable enters the conduit or
tubing. Metal conduit, tubing, and metal outlet boxes shall
be connected to an equipment grounding conductor complying
with the provisions of 250.86 and 250.148.

334.17 Through or Parallel to Framing Members. Types
NM, NMC, or NMS cable shall be protected in accordance
with 300.4 where installed through or parallel to framing
members. Grommets used as required in 300.4(B)(1)
shall remain in place and be listed for the purpose of
cable protection.

300.4
(A) Cables and Raceways Through Wood Members.
(1) Bored Holes. In both exposed and concealed locations,
where a cable- or raceway-type wiring method is installed
through bored holes in joists, rafters, or wood members,
holes shall be bored so that the edge of the hole is not less
than 32 mm (11?4 in.) from the nearest edge of the wood
member. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the
cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by
screws or nails by a steel plate(s) or bushing(s), at least
1.6 mm (1?16 in.) thick, and of appropriate length and width
installed to cover the area of the wiring.

(D) Cables and Raceways Parallel to Framing Members
and Furring Strips. In both exposed and concealed
locations, where a cable- or raceway-type wiring method is
installed parallel to framing members, such as joists,
rafters, or studs, or is installed parallel to furring strips, the
cable or raceway shall be installed and supported so that the
nearest outside surface of the cable or raceway is not less
than 32 mm (11?4 in.) from the nearest edge of the framing
member or furring strips where nails or screws are likely to
penetrate. Where this distance cannot be maintained, the
cable or raceway shall be protected from penetration by
nails or screws by a steel plate, sleeve, or equivalent at least
1.6 mm (1?16 in.) thick.

Does this sound fair? Does it show the EC that I didn't say tough luck I'm the boss?

 

[infinity]

Mike nice post. I agree with what you posted in post #21 that the NEC seems to imply that along the along the surface of the building constructionis not run perpendicular to the bottom of the joists. So back to the OP, you cannot install a #6 GEC in that manner and if you must do so a #4 or larger is required.

 

[K8MHZ]

I guess I am confused as to why it is OK to use rules for cable (NMS in this case) and the rules for the EGC and apply them to a single GEC.

This is what I see applies to a GEC

Grounding electrode conductors shall be permit-
ted to be installed on or through framing members.

This tells me that it is OK to install the GEC on a framing member. It doesn't specify what part of the framing member it is allowed on, nor does it prohibit any part of the framing member.

Articles that do not apply to a GEC do make such requirements, but, the key words are 'articles that do not apply to a GEC'.

 

[K8MHZ]

If you staple on the side of a joist the GEC still must be (even thought is not stated) installed like NM in 334.

Now you are expecting people to follow rules that are not stated?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Now you are expecting people to follow rules that are not stated?

Not using the rules for enforcement. 90.4 gives me that. All I wrote was to show why I interpret what is not clear. It is a courtesy to explain an interpretation and I believe a responsibility for the Inspector to try to help the EC understand his position.

How would you like me to explain subject to physical damage? How would you explain it?

I put both hats (contractor/inspector) on when trying to figure out to explain something to an EC.

 

[david]

(C) In Unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces. Where
cable is run at angles with joists in unfinished basements and crawl spaces, it shall be permissible to secure cables not smaller than two 6 AWG or three 8 AWG conductors directly to the lower edges of the joists. Smaller cables shall be run either through bored holes in joists or on running boards.[/QUOTE

I actually think this creates a problem with this analysis of the rule

The quoted section deals specifically with the lower edge of joist. But also talks about bored holes in joist.

250.64 (B) focuses more broadly and includes all framing members there is no language in 250.64 (B) that distinguishes between parallel or perpendicular to the framing member but the text itself seems to imply perpendicular since it gives you the choice of passing through the framing member or on the framing member.

The installer and inspector is allowed a more subjective approach in 250.64 the presence of physical damage can be analyzed in regards to how high the interior joist are (framing members) does the height afford protection of the exposed conductor or exterior is the building construction up against a side walk or parking lot just what is the danger of physical damage.

I would conclude as long as there is no apparent physical damage conditions the conductor does not need additional protection against physical damage and I admit it is a subjective view.
I would say you are allowed to run on the bottom of the joist based on the wording in 250.64 (B)

 

[david]

I would like to add I have seen plenty of NM cable damaged in unfinished basements, but I cant say I seen any grounding electrode conductors damaged in unfinished basements been doing re-meter inspections since 1990 the only ones I see damage is ones that where deliberately tampered with

 

[K8MHZ]

Not using the rules for enforcement. 90.4 gives me that. All I wrote was to show why I interpret what is not clear. It is a courtesy to explain an interpretation and I believe a responsibility for the Inspector to try to help the EC understand his position.

How would you like me to explain subject to physical damage? How would you explain it?

I put both hats (contractor/inspector) on when trying to figure out to explain something to an EC.

That's a good point.

Would driving a nail through a stranded #6 GEC damage it? I say no. Would driving a nail through a cable damage it? I say yes.

It takes much more to damage a #6 bare conductor than it does cable. You could probably even hang stuff off of it. And, what is the real danger of damaging a GEC when there is good bonding of the EGC at the panel? Even with 2 rods, the earth resistance can be so high that elimating the GEC altogether would not likely make the system any less safe.

That is not the same for a EGC. A compromised EGC is a very real and indisputable hazard. So it makes sense to be more strict with an EGC than a GEC.

Running a GEC along the bottom of a joist may not be the best way to do it, but I don't see a specific rule that prohibits it. I see running a GEC on the bottom of a joist to be a bad installation, but it's allowed by law, so it seems. It could be the worst installation allowed by law, but that is pretty much what the NEC's standards are.....a big list of the worst installations allowed by law.

Lucky for me, I can just say that I think running the GEC on the bottom of a joist is a bad thing to do and it doesn't matter if the NEC allows it or not. But an inspector really can't do that. Legally, I mean.

 

[david]

(C) In Unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces. Where
cable is run at angles with joists in unfinished basements and crawl spaces, it shall be permissible to secure cables not smaller than two 6 AWG or three 8 AWG conductors directly to the lower edges of the joists. Smaller cables shall be run either through bored holes in joists or on running boards.[/QUOTE

I actually think this creates a problem with this analysis of the rule

The quoted section deals specifically with the lower edge of joist. But also talks about bored holes in joist.

250.64 (B) focuses more broadly and includes all framing members there is no language in 250.64 (B) that distinguishes between parallel or perpendicular to the framing member but the text itself seems to imply perpendicular since it gives you the choice of passing through the framing member or on the framing member.

The installer and inspector is allowed a more subjective approach in 250.64 the presence of physical damage can be analyzed in regards to how high the interior joist are (framing members) does the height afford protection of the exposed conductor or exterior is the building construction up against a side walk or parking lot just what is the danger of physical damage.

I would conclude as long as there is no apparent physical damage conditions the conductor does not need additional protection against physical damage and I admit it is a subjective view.
I would say you are allowed to run on the bottom of the joist based on the wording in 250.64 (B)

It should be noted that if running boards afford the physical protection in the quoted section when running at angles to joist in unfinished basements, you should be able to conclude that running boards would afford the same protection against physical damage for grounding electrode conductors .

I would contend that running boards where not mentioned for grounding electrode conductors, because the extra protection for grounding electrode conductors when running at angles to framing members was not considered necessary when it was judge the conditions for physical damage was not present.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Very simple question.

Is the 'face' or 'edge' of a stud (2 X 4) a nailing surface in an unfinished basement?

 

[david]

Very simple question.

Is the 'face' or 'edge' of a stud (2 X 4) a nailing surface in an unfinished basement?

first the wiring is exposed, and the subject is protection of exposed wiring. so the answer is no in unfinished areas or exterior exposed building surfaces these would not be nailing surfaces

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I don't see where Mike is coming from. I can run #4 nm cable across the joist but running as #6 grounding electrode conductor to the bottom and parallel is no good. The reasoning is not there. I don't wire to the bottom as I mentioned but I see no code against it. If it is an authority having jurisdiction call then I think you need to look at why larger cables can be run across the joist.

 

[jxofaltrds]

first the wiring is exposed, and the subject is protection of exposed wiring. so the answer is no in unfinished areas or exterior exposed building surfaces these would not be nailing surfaces

Most Building Officials (AHJ) would disagree with you. You can't nail to the edge of a stud in a garage or the bottom of a truss or floor joist in a garage.

I don't see where Mike is coming from. I can run #4 nm cable across the joist but running as #6 grounding electrode conductor to the bottom and parallel is no good. The reasoning is not there. I don't wire to the bottom as I mentioned but I see no code against it. If it is an authority having jurisdiction call then I think you need to look at why larger cables can be run across the joist.

The #6 and #4. Dennis I agree but the code prohibits it.

Yes I can staple (secure) a 4/0 to the bottom of a joist but not a 12-2. Which causes a bigger 'boom'. Code??????

NO wire or conductor can be stapled to the bottom of a joist paralleled to it. It is a nailing surface.

Why can we go through a cold air return (NM) and not parallel to it? Code.

 

[david]

Most Building Officials (AHJ) would disagree with you. You can't nail to the edge of a stud in a garage or the bottom of a truss or floor joist in a garage.



The #6 and #4. Dennis I agree but the code prohibits it.

Yes I can staple (secure) a 4/0 to the bottom of a joist but not a 12-2. Which causes a bigger 'boom'. Code??????

NO wire or conductor can be stapled to the bottom of a joist paralleled to it. It is a nailing surface.

Why can we go through a cold air return (NM) and not parallel to it? Code.

Actually I sit in the office here with two master code officials. One of which sits on the board in Harrisburg that decides what will become part of the uniformed building code in this state and they would both disagree with you. In fact systems get fastened to the bottom of joist all the time. Duck work, conduit, gas pipes and on and on.