RICK NAPIER
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
I haven't given that much thought but I would say no since 250.104(B) allows it but sprinklers are a metal water piping system and as such would fall under 250.104(A) which does not allow that.
Bonding Piping Systems
- Thread starter augie47
- Start date
- Status
gadfly56
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
No. See posts #10 and #20.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
I thought this thread seemed a little familiar, similar answers and some same people.
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=124625
http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=124625
electrofelon
Senior Member
- Location
- Cherry Valley NY, Seattle, WA
Take gas piping. The reason we can't use the gas piping as an electrode is because, I believe, there is a high likelyhood that there is a dielectric union in there. However we still have to bond the piping. Now try to follow my logic here. If bonding the sprinkler was "bad" then it wouldn't matter if we were "using it as an electrode" or "just" bonding it. If the sprinkler wasn't a good electrode, then it seems like thats an electrical code issue, not something the sprinkler code would care about :?:
I was in hopes there was some newer info of which I was not aware. It still appears to me to be a contradiction and it becomes interesting in the field trying to explain to a Fire Inspector that the jumper installed from the building steel to the sprinkler riser is not "using the system as a ground" but simply bonding it whereas the same type jumper 5 ft away to the domestic water line is using that line for grounding the system.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Not speaking directly to you, I am just adding a comment in conjunction with yours.
Note that not every building has a dry system. There are wet systems and some have no pumps involved.
No pumps, no electric, no EGC. So, if is bonding required, a full sized jumper is needed.
Last edited:
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
I was in hopes there was some newer info of which I was not aware. It still appears to me to be a contradiction and it becomes interesting in the field trying to explain to a Fire Inspector that the jumper installed from the building steel to the sprinkler riser is not "using the system as a ground" but simply bonding it whereas the same type jumper 5 ft away to the domestic water line is using that line for grounding the system.
Yes, and I said above, how does one reconcile/explain with not using a sprinkler main as an electrode when it and the domestic use main are the same?
My conversation with a FM:
“That there bare wire to the water pipe is a GEC for an electrode but is only a bonding jumper for the sprinkler pipe Sir.”
“Son, I see one wire and one pipe, care to explain?”
“Nope, not really Sir. May I go now?”
“Boy, you just ain’t right!”
“I know Sir.”
gadfly56
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
It happens a lot. Locally, Jersey City is the only municipality I know of that requires separate service entrances for fire and domestic. Really, when you get to it, whether there is one service for fire and domestic or one each, it all goes back to the same main in the street. So, it's all one system in the end. I'm not sure what NFPA 13 thinks it's trying to accomplish.
texie
Senior Member
- Location
- Fort Collins, Colorado
- Occupation
- Electrician, Contractor, Inspector
I agree. It seems to me that NFPA 20 makes it clear that sprinkler piping can't be used as a grounding electrode but at the same time recognizes that the NEC requires bonding. As someone mentioned, very similar situation to gas piping.
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
How do the electrons know? :?
gadfly56
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
LarryFine
Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
- Location
- Henrico County, VA
- Occupation
- Electrical Contractor
Asking reasonable questions?!? What are you, a wise guy?
With the name Larry Fine, what else?
gadfly56
Senior Member
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
With the name Larry Fine, what else?
Nyuck, nyuck, nyuck!
alternatively;
Woo! woo! woo! woo! wooo!
svemike
Member
- Location
- Sonoma, CA
Talking about Bonding, not "Grounding"
Talking about Bonding, not "Grounding"
If NFPA13 is taliking about "Bonding", then they should say so. As NFPA writes the NEC as well, they should well know the difference in Bonding and Grounding.
Talking about Bonding, not "Grounding"
If NFPA13 is taliking about "Bonding", then they should say so. As NFPA writes the NEC as well, they should well know the difference in Bonding and Grounding.
I think so.
I'd also think that if the building contains any structural steel that the sprinkler pipe is attached to, and if the steel is bonded to the ground, that would also be sufficient for the sprinkler pipe.
I don't think the code says anywhere that the bond has to be made with a wire. I believe steel to steel connections also count.
as sensible as that is, 250.104 leads me to believe the bonding must be by a conductor.
That also makes sense, but 250.90 (the very beginning of part V) says "bonding shall be provided where necessary to ensure electrical continuity and the capacity to conduct safely any fault current...."
So if the bonding isn't necessary because the pipe is already bonded.....
The handbook commentary seems to support that stating that "a bonding wire is only necessary where bonding through mechanical connections cannot be ensured."
But you are right, the wording in the code doesn't really make it clear one way or another.
- Status