Can a GEC be ran with other conductors?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If your running a GEC in conduit, can it be ran with feeder or branch circuit conductors? My experience says NO but what is the code article that confrims my experience? I've searched and its driving me nuts!
 
barbeer said:
250.6 could be interpreted to confirm your suspicions, meanwhile good work ethic could finish the job. Don't forget 250.64(E).

250.6? How do you figure to create objectionable currents solely by running the GEC with other conductors?

I don't see how 250.64(E) would prohibit this either.
 
barbeer said:
250.6 could be interpreted to confirm your suspicions, meanwhile good work ethic could finish the job. Don't forget 250.64(E).
i checked both of these and neither states that you can't run the grounding electrode conductor with other conductors.
 
lynch_family said:
If your running a GEC in conduit, can it be ran with feeder or branch circuit conductors? My experience says NO but what is the code article that confrims my experience? I've searched and its driving me nuts!

Looks like it can, 250.64, but it must be bonded at both ends, 250.92(A)(3). I would not do it though in light of its purpose.

Why not run it exposed, 250.64(B)?
 
Just make sure that GEC you propose to run in pipe isn't solid wire. I forget what size is the biggest solid you're allowed to run in pipe, but any GEC is bigger than that.
 
Sometimes the path the GEC has to be installed can be a hard one. So the EC will use a raceway already in place to help him/her on their way. It is permitted as long as 250.64(E)/250.92(A)(3) are complied with.


Think about a wireway that has service entrance conductors installed within it, below a panel(s). Now think about installing the GEC to the grounded conductor within that same enclosure. That is a pretty common install... the same principle would hold forth for other types of conductors (Branch Circuit and Feeder).
Remember the NEC is a permissive document...can you find where is says this install would be a violation?
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
Actually that would be 8 AWG as per 680.23(B)(2)(b) and 680.27(A)(2).

I disagree.
310.3 says size 8 awg and larger shall be stranded.
Exception: As permitted elsewhere in this Code.

I believe an article pertaining to underwater luminaires and audio equipment would be part of the exception not included in the general rule.
 
nyerinfl said:
I disagree.
310.3 says size 8 awg and larger shall be stranded.
Exception: As permitted elsewhere in this Code.

I believe an article pertaining to underwater luminaires and audio equipment would be part of the exception not included in the general rule.

you are correct 8awg is the largest solid wire allowed, and since the subject has changed completely. Do we all agree the NEC allows you to install the GEC with other conductors?
 
lynch_family said:
Do we all agree the NEC allows you to install the GEC with other conductors?

I can't speak for all but personally I agree that the NEC does not prohibit that.

That aside I feel it is a very poor design, the biggest job of a GEC is the contrail of lightning strikes and dangerous over voltages from utility problems.

The last place I would want to direct that high voltage blast is into a conduit containing power and lighting conductors.
 
Originally Posted by Pierre C Belarge
Actually that would be 8 AWG as per 680.23(B)(2)(b) and 680.27(A)(2).

nyerinfl said:
I disagree.
310.3 says size 8 awg and larger shall be stranded.
Exception: As permitted elsewhere in this Code.

I believe an article pertaining to underwater luminaires and audio equipment would be part of the exception not included in the general rule.

Read the exception under 310.3. it states: "As permitted or required elsewhere in this code". See 90.3 and how Chapter 6 amends Chapter 3. Pierre is correct. :) (even if he's off topic and no longer discussing a GEC). :wink:
 
In the inner ring and inner cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis, there is a window of time during which only "all metal wiring methods" were permitted. No NM or K&T, etc. WWII through 1975.

On occasion, I get to see wonderful EMT and flex jobs, either retrofit or original first installation.

The GEC was commonly run with conductors of branch circuits. An individual GEC raceway was the exception.

IMO, the NEC still does not prohibit either installation of the GEC. :wink: That's why its so hard to find. The prohibition is not there.
 
wbalsam1 said:
Originally Posted by Pierre C Belarge
Actually that would be 8 AWG as per 680.23(B)(2)(b) and 680.27(A)(2).



Read the exception under 310.3. it states: "As permitted or required elsewhere in this code". See 90.3 and how Chapter 6 amends Chapter 3. Pierre is correct. :) (even if he's off topic and no longer discussing a GEC). :wink:

I stated the exception and explained my view on it. I wasn't saying 8 solid isn't written anywhere in the code, I was saying it was an obscure exception to the standard rule of 10 being the largest.
 
iwire said:
I can't speak for all but personally I agree that the NEC does not prohibit that.

That aside I feel it is a very poor design, the biggest job of a GEC is the contrail of lightning strikes and dangerous over voltages from utility problems.

The last place I would want to direct that high voltage blast is into a conduit containing power and lighting conductors.

This is exactly what I was referring to, I stated 250.6, but the objectionable currents weren't necessarilly permanent. Many interpretations can come from the vague portions of the NEC whether right or not. 250.64(E) still applies.

250.6 could be interpreted to confirm your suspicions, meanwhile good work ethic could finish the job. Don't forget 250.64(E).
 
I really don't see anyway to bring 250.6 into the question of running an GEC with other conductors.

Even if we try to bring 250.6(A) into this discussion 250.6(C) seems to remove it.

I am not even sure a red tag could be given for any installation based on 250.6(A).
 
iwire said:
Even if we try to bring 250.6(A) into this discussion 250.6(C) seems to remove it.

Thanks for pointing that out. I have missed that in the past!

I am not even sure a red tag could be given for any installation based on 250.6(A).
Agree - never have, as stated in other posts it is not the norm to see the op's installation.
 
I agree with iwire

I agree with iwire

Just to put in my 2 cents:

I think too many people argue the verbage of code instead of it's purpose and intent. It's not about what we can get away with, it's about having a safe installation. If the GEC is for lightning protection, what is the probability of consequent damage if it's run in the same conduit with branch circuits? I can only speak for myself, in that I know it's something I wouldn't do. Curiously, what do you do if you're an inspector and you feel strongly that an installation is unsafe but can't really quote a specific code violation? :-?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top