250.136 bonding a steel switch rack

[Isaiah]

At this site, they are insisting the metal switchbacks must be bonded to an equipotential plane that is buried approximately 18” deep. Per 250.136,
I’ve told them that if the rack is bonded via the EGC to the main disconnecting means there is no need to provide an additional bond from metal rack to the so called “grounding loop”.
Am I missing something here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

At this site, they are insisting the metal switchbacks must be bonded to an equipotential plane that is buried approximately 18” deep

What are metal switchbacks? Your title says racks are you asking about a strut rack used to support disconnect switches?

 

[Dsg319]

Most industrial oil/gas plants always require us in there specs for everything electrical to be bonded to the “grounding grid”

 

[Isaiah]

What are metal switchbacks? Your title says racks are you asking about a strut rack used to support disconnect switches?

We have both steel C-Chanel switch racks and Unistrut switch racks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Isaiah]

Most industrial oil/gas plants always require us in there specs for everything electrical to be bonded to the “grounding grid”

Yea but this is not an oil and gas project. Also my understanding is the grounding grid is a standard practice and not a Code requirement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

Yea but this is not an oil and gas project. Also my understanding is the grounding grid is a standard practice and not a Code requirement

We have both steel C-Chanel switch racks and Unistrut switch racks

Additional bonding would be a design issue not a code requirement.

 

[Isaiah]

Additional bonding would be a design issue not a code requirement.

Thanks Infinity. That’s what I thought


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[infinity]

Thanks Infinity. That’s what I thought

Even if you considered the strut or rack likely to become energized you would bond it to the EGC not an equipotential plane. 250.136 which takes you to 250.134 confirms this.

 

[qcroanoke]

Look at your job specifications.

 

[Isaiah]

Even if you considered the strut or rack likely to become energized you would bond it to the EGC not an equipotential plane. 250.136 which takes you to 250.134 confirms this.

Yes sir 100% agreed!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk