2005NEC Equipotential Bonding Grid 680.26(c3)

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tjtrout20

Member
Conductive reinforcing steel for coping and around pool in 4?concreate slab was installed by the flat workers. We have bonded the steel in 5 places around pool within 3? of pool wall. The inspector has the flat worker re-doing the steel as they were not 12 x 12 grid network. He quoted NEC 2005 680.26 (c) 3. It is my opinion that ?grid structure? in 680.26 c refers to the construction of a #8 awg bare solid copper grid network under (3) Alternate Means and the NEC does not give a specified construction method for 680.26 (c)1 or Structural Reinforcing Steel.
The General that we are working for called me two weeks prior to the installation of the re-bar and asked if the NEC had specifications regarding the installation of the re-bar. After reviewing the section I call back and my answer to his question was no. Do I deserve the egg that is on my face? Thanks for any and all comments. T. J.
 
If you're using the structural steel of the pool than it must comply with 680.26(C)(1). I see no requirement for a 12 x 12 grid in that section. I agree with you that the 12 X 12 mentioned under 680.26(C)(3)(b) does not apply to the structural steel.
 
my thinking is to require the 12"x12" grid of steel.
it is very unclear --the last sentence of 680.26(3)a , where we get the "#8 AWG copper" refers to "connections per 680.26(D)" , which is talking about reinforcing steel again....
 
mayjong said:
my thinking is to require the 12"x12" grid of steel.
it is very unclear --the last sentence of 680.26(3)a , where we get the "#8 AWG copper" refers to "connections per 680.26(D)" , which is talking about reinforcing steel again....
Click to expand...


If you're using structural steel you're covered under 680.26(C)(1) so there is no need to go on to one of the other methods in 680.26(C)(3).
 
true-
but there is no "structural reinforcing steel" that extends for 3' horizontally.
pool builders (typically) want the pool deck seperate from the structural steel of the pool , or it may crack.
i know what some are requiring , one piece of steel, encircling the pool at 3'. i don't buy it .
look at it this way-
if i want to use the method described in 680.26 (3) - how do i "bond the conductors at all points of crossing "? can you tell me how the connections of this 12"x12" copper grid are supposed to be made? per 680.26 (D)??

it doesn't make a lot of sense...
 
Thanks for the comments?.. I really did mean any and all were welcome (even if it was an opposing opinion) we are using the re-bar or ?Structural Reinforcing Steel? in the coping and the concrete slab for bonding the walking surface around the pool. The Structural Reinforcing Steel of the pool is also bonded. The pool does float. If the powers that be felt it necessary to specify the construction of the Structural Reinforcing Steel , would they have not added that information in 680.26 (c) 1 as they did in describing the construction of the ?alternate means? of a #8 bare copper grid in 680.26 (c) 3? For the record the steel was on a 24? grid. The article states ANY of the following shall be permitted. Mayjong I totally agree with: to error on the side of caution when it comes to safety. I have general understanding of voltage gradients and the concerns of an electrical charge being sufficient enough to immobilize a person but I think that I will leave the best way to combat that problem up to the experts. With all due respect, the fact that you don?t buy what is clearly written speaks to your opinion on how to alleviate voltage gradients around pools, even if it?s a better way, it is not what the code states! The NEC or NFPA has spent millions of $ to develop the minimum standard for wring, with ten of thousands of written codes; why not just interpret the text? Why add more?
 
tjtrout20 said:
, the fact that you don?t buy what is clearly written speaks to your opinion on how to alleviate voltage gradients around pools, even if it?s a better way, it is not what the code states! The NEC or NFPA has spent millions of $ to develop the minimum standard for wring, with ten of thousands of written codes; why not just interpret the text? Why add more?
Click to expand...
it's not that i don't buy "what is clearly written"-- it's that i don't buy a #3 rebar, encircling the pool at 3' , connected to the bond beam.
what else should i allow? anything that is connected to the bond beam? after all, there is no minimum size given like there is in other bonding descriptions. it's not clearly written- you said so yourself -"the NEC does not give a specified construction method."
but it does say " the equipotential common bonding grid SHALL extend under paved walking surfaces for 3' horizontally...and SHALL be permitted to be ..." (1)structural reinforcing steel...
so, if i see a pool that has structural reinforcing steel, that extends 3' horizontally from the pool, i'd buy it.
i am TRYING to interpret the text, i just wish it where clearer. has it been changed in the '08 ??
btw- there are several CA jurisdictions calling it this way , but we are in CA!!!
and i guess it keeps things interesting...
 
mayjong said:
my thinking is to require the 12"x12" grid of steel.

Sounds like if you were looking at our particular situation the bonding would have passed inspection. I guess my point is that requiring a 12 x12 steel grid IMHO is clearly a misinterpretation of the text, even if the article taken as a hole is less than clear. If an inspector wants it done show me where the NEC requires it or have your AHJ amend a more stringent procedure or write the inspectors billing address on the correction notice and I will send him the change order bill. 30day net?.please
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top