410.16 - Means of Support

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

In the 1984 code the second sentence of 410-16(c) started with the words "Fixtures so supported shall be ...". Proposal 18-32 in the 1986 TCR asked for the words "or otherwise supported" to be added after "so supported". The panel accepted in principal by deleting the words "so supported" from the second sentence giving us the current wording. The panel statement said: "The Panel agrees that all fixtures within a ceiling system should be attached to that ceiling system".
Note: TCR is Technical Committee Report, this is the old name for the document that is now known as the "Report on Proposals" (ROP).
Don
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Originally posted by pierre:
I am glad you wrote "respectfully", even if you didn't, I know we have developed mutual respect for each other's thoughts and ideas. :)

It would be boring (and foolish looking) if I only responded to the posts I agree with.

[ December 29, 2005, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: iwire ]
Click to expand...
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

What about 110.3B? Every trouffer I have ever installed has some form of instructions, either on the packaging itself, or inside the packaging. They all show the light being supported by the provided clips.

Gerry
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Charlie, I am back... and I still agree that the first sentence and the second sentence are entangled. If you are not supporting the fixture from the ceiling grid, you do not need to even read the second sentence.
My wife is a reading/writing expert, and I am going to ask her how she would read this.

Don
The '84 TCR may have it's comment, but we have all learned that the intent and the wording may not always mean the same. I still do not see where the NEC says I cannot support the fixtures by other means, such as chain, wire, rod.
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Pierre,
Don
The '84 TCR may have it's comment, but we have all learned that the intent and the wording may not always mean the same.
Click to expand...
A comment (18-23 in the 86 TCD) was made requesting an exception from the rule to secure the fixture to the grid when the fixture is not supported by the grid. The comment was rejected with the panel stating: "It is the panel's intent to require fixtures otherwise supported to be fastened to the grid".
I don't know what else to say. The issue in this discussion is the interpretation of the code rule. We have published statements from the CMP stating the intent of this rule. To me that is just as good as a Formal Interpretation.
I still do not see where the NEC says I cannot support the fixtures by other means, such as chain, wire, rod.
Click to expand...
It doesn't say that you cannot use other means to support the fixture, it just says that no matter what method is used to support the fixture, that the fixture must be secured to the grid.
Don
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Pierre,
My wife is a reading/writing expert, and I am going to ask her how she would read this.
Click to expand...
If you do that, give her both the 1984 code wording and the current code wording and ask if they both mean the same thing.
Don

typo

[ December 30, 2005, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Originally posted by don_resqcapt19: "It is the panel's intent to require fixtures otherwise supported to be fastened to the grid."
Click to expand...
I certainly can't argue against that level of evidence. I can, however, do what I had thought of doing to Pierre. I can throw "Charlie's Rule" on the table. Please note the words in bold:
Charlie?s Rule of Technical Reading

It doesn?t say what you think it says, nor what you remember it to have said, nor what you were told that it says, and certainly not what you want it to say, and if by chance you are its author, it doesn?t say what you intended it to say. Then what does it say? It says what it says. So if you want to know what it says, stop trying to remember what it says, and don?t ask anyone else. Go back and read it, and pay attention as though you were reading it for the first time.
Click to expand...
Continuing to hold to my opinion, I will now assert that the text, as written, does not say what its authors intended it to say. It does not say that fixtures otherwise supported are to be fastened to the grid. What it says is that fixtures that are to be supported by the grid must be fastened to the grid. It says nothing whatsoever about fixtures that are otherwise supported.
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Originally posted by iwire: It seems that the NEC does not feel tie wires alone as the support do not secure the item.
Click to expand...
It says no such thing. Look again:
Support wires that do not provide secure support shall not be permitted as the sole support. Support wires and associated fittings that provide secure support and that are installed in addition to the ceiling grid support wires shall be permitted as the sole support.
Click to expand...
This boils down to "if it's not good enough, don?t use it." Or if you prefer, "if it's not secure, then don't use it alone. But if it is secure, then you can use it alone."

It is not saying that tie wires are not good enough. If you took away the word "that" in the opening phrase, "support wires that do not provide secure support," then you would be interpreting it correctly. But the word "that" changes everything. What it changes it to is this: some tie wires are good enough, and others are not. Don't use the ones that are not secure, unless you use something else to help make it secure.
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Charlie,
Continuing to hold to my opinion, I will now assert that the text, as written, does not say what its authors intended it to say. It does not say that fixtures otherwise supported are to be fastened to the grid. What it says is that fixtures that are to be supported by the grid must be fastened to the grid. It says nothing whatsoever about fixtures that are otherwise supported.
Click to expand...
We don't agree on the meaning of the text. I still maintain that there is nothing in the code section that ties the second sentence to the first. That tie was removed when the words "so supported" were removed in the 87 code The two sentences in this section stand alone. The first tells us how the grid itself must be installed when used to support the fixture. The second just tells us that the fixture must be secured to the grid. There is no conjunctive wording in that section that says the second only applies when the first applies.
We can say that the meaning is not clear, and we can say the wording is wrong, but that is a matter of interpretation. When there are clear panel statements as to the intent and meaning those statements are the same as a FI and should be respected as such.
Don
PS; I did apply your rule of technical reading to this issue and still do not come to the same conclusion as you do.

[ December 30, 2005, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Don
I am not denying the comment made by the CMP in '84. I am saying that the wording (as I read it) does not tell me that I cannot use other means of support, and if I use other means of support, that would be sufficient.

The ROPs and ROCs can say whatever, to try and help clarify what intent is, but the wording that finds it's way into the NEC is the final say and takes precedent over the ROP/ROC comments.

As we have seen from other code citations, it is difficult at best to write code that can be read as what the original intent is/was.
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Pierre,
... but the wording that finds it's way into the NEC is the final say and takes precedent over the ROP/ROC comments.
Click to expand...
I fully agree that when the panel comments are in conflict with the code wording that the wording has to prevail, at least until you get a court ruling, but the problem here is that the wording in the code says exactly what the panel comment says it means. If you request a FI on this the CMP will look at the ROPs and ROCs and use that information to guide them in their answer. As I stated before, the code does say what the panel says it says and to me, and many code authorities, a panel statement is just as good as a FI. If you had an FI on this issue, would you accept that? The FI would not change the code wording, it would just be an official statement that says what the intent of the rule is.
Don

[ December 30, 2005, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: don_resqcapt19 ]
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Don
If it made sense to me that the means of support of a fixture from other than the ceiling grid was not sufficient, this would be a different kind of discusion.

My thoughts are - from a "little" field experience - when a fixture is supported from wire, chain or rod, what would be the reason for "attachment" of the fixture to the framing members of the ceiling grid in addition to the support methods mentioned above?
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

Originally posted by pierre:
Don
If it made sense to me that the means of support of a fixture from other than the ceiling grid was not sufficient, this would be a different kind of discusion.
Click to expand...
Pierre you of all people say that???? :roll: :mad:

[ December 31, 2005, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: iwire ]
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

I'm new here, but it sounds to me that the "I didn't see the stopsign" defence is being used alot here. I have been more concerned that it doesn't specify both more clearly. see90-1(c) also 90-4. Electrical officials work closely with other officials for this reason. To save your bacon. I have never seen a ceiling installer put in any more support than neccesary for thier own requirements. Just because you are only an electrician does not meen that you don't have to follow structural code. You wouldn't drill a hole in a beam without asking the engineer first. Would you? The NFPA trumps NEC. You all have establish that this is a fire issue allready. No, the grid is not support. Ever see a newbe knock the grid down trying to put up a 2x4? Unless you want to screw the whole grid together and put in twice as many wires. Wires or fixture have to be connected at grid 300-11. Grid shoul be bonded by some other means than tabs 250-116 FPN like a pool. Because this grid is not screwed together, it is the least we can do to do it at every light. FYI do this on the grid supports that have the original wires, not the ones that fall out, or it doesn't do much good. Wires generally don't go straight up. This helps keep the fixture from swinging over and hitting some in the noggin. I agree that 410-16 is poorly done. Perhaps a liability issue. But for us that do the work, refer back to first of message and keep reading until you find what you are looking for.
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

PS thanks all for the code update I was looking for when I found this site. This is a great site.
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

I'm glad i stayed out of this one early. All i want to point out is that 2 wires do not adequately support an electrical fixture, it will flop all over the place without the grid. Therefore the two wires are not adequate support as per the NEC. But the two wires are required by other codes as has been pointed out. Troffers on two wires require the the grid for support.

paul :cool:
 
Re: 410.16 - Means of Support

After thoroughly reading all the recent posts, I still agree with Pierre's original interpretation of 410.16(C), based on the way it is written. Don has provided much insight on the intent of the cmp, but I do not agree that the current wording supports the intent.

Fortunately again, I'm in MA so it's not an issue for me. :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top