Grounding Electrode Conductor run on face of joists

[texie]

Mike, the reason that the NEC requires 1 1/4" from the edge is for nail penetration. Of course if it is drilled then when someone puts sheetrock up it is in danger of being hit but when it is nailed along the bottom of the joist it is protected, IMO, and there is no danger of nails since the grounding electrode conductor would have to be moved.

Again I say to you -- if I use a running board perpendicular to the joist then I can run my cables , grounding electrode conductor or whatever to the bottom of the board. Now how is this any different then the grounding electrode conductor running parallel along the bottom of a joist.

I am sorry you keep quoting code but IMO it is mostly your opinion as to what is being written. Unfortunately it isn't that clear and not everyone sees it as you do. Yes, the protected from damage causes more grief for everyone and is open for the inspector to do as they see fit which, as you know, can be looked at differently by other inspectors.

Wow, who new this would be such a big deal. If I follow correctly, I think we are in the same camp. At first I said it was not compliant but then realized we were talking running along the length on the bottom as indicted in post 13. You I think you have stated it well. The running board comments lend even more credence to the argument that it is legal.

 

[Nom Deplume]

Doesn't make sense to me either. I'm just debating what I think the code says.

Why do they say it is ok to go through a joist? None of us would have a problem with that but they specifically called it out!

I think any wire on the bottom of a joist is subject to damage even the ones allowed. But if they are allowed to be there my opinion doesn't matter.

I gave an example earlier that shows that I use common sense with the underside of a joist. I just think that the code doesn't want most of them there.

Why would you restrict a wire stapled to the bottom of a joist, when all of the code references are for cables and not individual wires?

 

[david]

Would you allow me to install any wire on a joist touching the subfloor?

The basement is unfinished.

with air nailing , even hand driven nails and screws, you raise a valid concern. Fortnightly for the electrician the sub floor is usually already fastened before the electrical system in installed. If we are still talking about un-finished basements and the subfloor is only tacked in place and additional fasting stills needs done to the subflooring I would not allow it un-protected up against the subfloor. That is why you are out their to make these subjective decisions based on your understanding of the code.
Nobody is saying not too. We just did not agree with your understanding of what this section of the code said with regards to the bottom edge of the joist.

we have no argument that you have the right to judge certain environments as prone to cause damage, and when you said that your reason was that the bottom is subject to damage we backed off. We may not agree or see ourselves that his is prone to physical damage but that is your call not ours to make when you are the inspector.

 

[K8MHZ]

Why would you restrict a wire stapled to the bottom of a joist, when all of the code references are for cables and not individual wires?

You are not the first person to ask that. I am curious about that as well.

 

[jxofaltrds]

Why would you restrict a wire stapled to the bottom of a joist, when all of the code references are for cables and not individual wires?

You are not the first person to ask that. I am curious about that as well.

Read my post #27.

 

[Nom Deplume]

Read my post #27.

Nothing in that post answers my question.
How about a code reference that prohibits a conductor from being stapled to the bottom of joists running perpendicular?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Nothing in that post answers my question.
How about a code reference that prohibits a conductor from being stapled to the bottom of joists running perpendicular?

GEC
250.64
(B) Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage.

NM
334.15
(C) In Unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces.

Please note the use of:
"directly to the lower edges of the joists."

The NEC has assumed that the "surface" has been understood to this point. Now they are adding an additional location.

And that it must be: "Where cable is run at angles with joists"

 

[jxofaltrds]

Mike, the reason that the NEC requires 1 1/4" from the edge is for nail penetration. Of course if it is drilled then when someone puts sheetrock up it is in danger of being hit but when it is nailed along the bottom of the joist it is protected, IMO, and there is no danger of nails since the grounding electrode conductor would have to be moved.

Again I say to you -- if I use a running board perpendicular to the joist then I can run my cables , grounding electrode conductor or whatever to the bottom of the board. Now how is this any different then the grounding electrode conductor running parallel along the bottom of a joist.

I am sorry you keep quoting code but IMO it is mostly your opinion as to what is being written. Unfortunately it isn't that clear and not everyone sees it as you do. Yes, the protected from damage causes more grief for everyone and is open for the inspector to do as they see fit which, as you know, can be looked at differently by other inspectors.

Wow, who new this would be such a big deal. If I follow correctly, I think we are in the same camp. At first I said it was not compliant but then realized we were talking running along the length on the bottom as indicted in post 13. You I think you have stated it well. The running board comments lend even more credence to the argument that it is legal.

Could it be that they know other trades are in the structure? Could it be that they don't want those trades damaging any part of the electrical system?

Just a though.

 

[Nom Deplume]

GEC
250.64
(B) Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage.

NM
334.15
(C) In Unfinished Basements and Crawl Spaces.

Please note the use of:
"directly to the lower edges of the joists."

The NEC has assumed that the "surface" has been understood to this point. Now they are adding an additional location.

And that it must be: "Where cable is run at angles with joists"

250.64(B) doesn't refer to the lower edges of joists. Protection from physical is a judgment call since the edges of joists aren't addressed.

334.15 is about NM cable and doesn't applying the GRC.

The NEC doesn't ever assume.

 

[jxofaltrds]

The NEC doesn't ever assume.

Never?

(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification
or an instruction manual for untrained persons.

 

[Little Bill]

Grounding electrode conductors shall be permitted to be installed on or through framing members. 250.64 (B)
The Grounding Electrode Conductor is stapled to the bottom of the joists running perpendicular to the bottom of the joists across the length of the basement. So again, is this permitted or not. Note which code section please.
Thanks

Why did the direction of parallel with the joists even come up when the OP specifically said perpendicular to the joists?

BTW, I agree, it is ok/permitted to run the #6 perpendicular to the joists and stapled to the bottom since it's not stated anywhere that it is prohibited.
Also agree that a single conductor is not a cable.:thumbsup:

 

[david]

Mike

just for the purpose of clarification

is this installation following the building surface

 

[GoldDigger]

I would say that it is not following it very well.

Tapatalk!

 

[david]

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


334.15(A) through (C).

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

My point is that mike feels strongly maybe more strongly than you that is true.
These statements are almost identical in these two section. And i disagree that you are not just because the support is spanning the joist spacing.

Look to be incompliance with 334.15 (A) through (C) you have to be in compliance with (A)

The code would not direct you in (C) to do something that put you in violation with part (A) unless it was written as an exception to part (A). since the rule says you most meet (A) through (A) through (C)

(C) clearly directs that cables can be run at angles with joists and secured directly to the lower edges of the joists. How could it be possible that (C) was giving a clear directive that would put you in violation of part (A).?

 

[jxofaltrds]

Mike

just for the purpose of clarification

is this installation following the building surface

That is code compliant. TY for the picture. :thumbsup:

The 1 X's are protecting the cables.

"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."

Same way it is performed in an attic.

(A) Cables Run Across the Top of Floor Joists. Where
run across the top of floor joists, or within 2.1 m (7 ft) of
the floor or floor joists across the face of rafters or studding,
the cable shall be protected by substantial guard strips that
are at least as high as the cable. Where this space is not
accessible by permanent stairs or ladders, protection shall
only be required within 1.8 m (6 ft) of the nearest edge of
the scuttle hole or attic entrance.

(B) Cable Installed Parallel to Framing Members.

Take us back to 300.4(D)

(D) Cables and Raceways Parallel to Framing Members
and Furring Strips.

 

[david]

That is code compliant. TY for the picture. :thumbsup:

Mike your statement did not answer my question directly Is the installation in compliance with (A) I agree with you without the

batter boards the installation would not be code compliant. And since this discussion is about GEC not NM cable. I am trying to discuss shall follow the building surface.

Adding the furring strips does not change the way the cable is installed. Lets take away the furring strips and change the cable size to 8/3 does the installation meet what is required in part (A)

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

 

[jxofaltrds]

Mike your statement did not answer my question directly Is the installation in compliance with (A) I agree with you without the

batter boards the installation would not be code compliant. And since this discussion is about GEC not NM cable. I am trying to discuss shall follow the building surface.

Adding the furring strips does not change the way the cable is installed. Lets take away the furring strips and change the cable size to 8/3 does the installation meet what is required in part (A)

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

If I understand you question the picture does not meet 334.15.

They are using:

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.

Is the cable still exposed? Yes. Bet most inspectors consider it the same as NM in an unfinished garage wall.

Exposed (as applied to wiring methods). On or attached
to the surface or behind panels designed to allow access.

What to debate exposed now? LOL :lol:

 

[david]

That is code compliant. TY for the picture. :thumbsup:

The 1 X's are protecting the cables.

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

Mike there is a difference in the use of the board in providing physical protection around here we call the board that provides the protection when installed along side the cable as batter boards and we would call the board a running board when the cable is fastened to the board that is providing the protection

I am going to try and get you to see that the board is only there to provide physical protection not to address the requirement in (A). The requirement in (A) is met with or without the physical protection. I hope you see that with the installation of 8/3 without running boards. If you do not see that how is the statement in (C) code compliant when it comes to cables larger than 8/2

 

[jxofaltrds]

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

Mike there is a difference in the use of the board in providing physical protection around here we call the board that provides the protection when installed along side the cable as batter boards and we would call the board a running board when the cable is fastened to the board that is providing the protection

I am going to try and get you to see that the board is only there to provide physical protection not to address the requirement in (A). The requirement in (A) is met with or without the physical protection. I hope you see that with the installation of 8/3 without running boards. If you do not see that how is the statement in (C) code compliant when it comes to cables larger than 8/2

I understand (C) I brought 334 into this debate.

I thought that I was agreeing with you?????

I am missing what you are trying to tell me.

 

[david]

I understand (C) I brought 334 into this debate.

I thought that I was agreeing with you?????

I am missing what you are trying to tell me.

so you agree that fasting a grounding electrode conductor on the bottom of the joist is meting the requirement of following the building surface when the bottom edge of the joist is continuously above the conductor

and

you agree the grounding electrode conductor is following the building surface when the conductor is fastened to the bottom edge fastened at an angle to the joist?