CSST

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gac66610 said:
I'm confused with "bonded differently"
What i read is bonded the same
Click to expand...

If you have regular black iron pipe or the counterstrike CSST piping made by Omegaflex (I am sure others make it also) then the only bonding necessary is the egc that feeds one of the gas appliances, eg, the furnace.

If you use the standard CSST then you need to bond that piping back to the service with a #6 or larger conductor.
 
rcarroll said:
From the Fuel Gas Code: CSST gas piping systems shall be bonded to the electrical service grounding electrode system at the point where the the gas service enters the building.
'09 IFGC 310.1.1
Click to expand...

Now I wonder if the manufacturers have changed there info. Gastite used to say to bond anywhere on the system to one of the CSST connectors.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
If you have regular black iron pipe or the counterstrike CSST piping made by Omegaflex (I am sure others make it also) then the only bonding necessary is the egc that feeds one of the gas appliances, eg, the furnace.

If you use the standard CSST then you need to bond that piping back to the service with a #6 or larger conductor.
Click to expand...

Okay reread it again after reading your post, i see what you meant

I did however read, might have been in another thread, that manufacturer installation requirements over rule NEC or IFGC?
I miss read things due to lack of :sleep:
 
Gac66610 said:
Don - correct me if i'm wrong, do you believe that bonding the gas might let lightning see it better?(lack of better words)
Click to expand...
I don't think it makes any real difference as the standard code required bonding will likely let enough current flow to make the holes in the CSST.
or is it bonded or not bonded won't help the CSST from pitting either way the CSST is too fragile and shouldn't be used (that would solve this issue):)
Click to expand...
That would be the best solution.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
If you have regular black iron pipe or the counterstrike CSST piping made by Omegaflex (I am sure others make it also) then the only bonding necessary is the egc that feeds one of the gas appliances, eg, the furnace.

If you use the standard CSST then you need to bond that piping back to the service with a #6 or larger conductor.
Click to expand...
I am not sure that they really believe that as the submitter for proposal 5-172 works for Omegaflex. Proposal 5-172, would if accepted, require all gas piping to be bonded with like interior water pipe...that is the bonding would be sized by T250.66 and the size of the service conductors.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
I am not sure that they really believe that as the submitter for proposal 5-172 works for Omegaflex. Proposal 5-172, would if accepted, require all gas piping to be bonded with like interior water pipe...that is the bonding would be sized by T250.66 and the size of the service conductors.
Click to expand...

I think that's the way it should be. Think of a gas stove, once the stove is unplugged the egc may no longer be there if that is the only appliance in the building. Also why is the egc allowed to bond the gas line but the water pipes must be based on T,250.66? It, the proposal, makes sense to me.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I think that's the way it should be. Think of a gas stove, once the stove is unplugged the egc may no longer be there if that is the only appliance in the building. Also why is the egc allowed to bond the gas line but the water pipes must be based on T,250.66? It, the proposal, makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
I don't see any technical reason for the water pipe to be bonded based on T250.66. I don't see any reason for either to be bonded if they are not connected to an electrical appliance and if they are the EGC for that appliance is suitable for the bonding path.
 
raider1 said:
This provision could be used by a Building Official to waive the bonding requirement if the Official felt the design and listing information was adequate to show that no bonding is necessary.

Chris
Click to expand...

I just learned that at least one area, and I heard the states position was the extra bonding must occur no matter what CSST is used. I tend to agree with that.

I got so mad the other day on a job. The HVAC guys ran a 10' piece of the omegaflex counterstrike CSST to a range and that is the only gas appliance in the house. It cost about $200 for me to bond the stuff. It seems like a short piece of black iron would have been just as cheap.

I will charge for it but I don't like the situation.
 
I know your frustration, my service always seem to be on the opposite end of the house as the gas service :rant:

But, lets say, there are two CEE one by my service and one closer to the gas service, could I use the CEE to bond the gas?
they are connected through the re-bar in the footings of the foundation
 
Gac66610 said:
I know your frustration, my service always seem to be on the opposite end of the house as the gas service :rant:

But, lets say, there are two CEE one by my service and one closer to the gas service, could I use the CEE to bond the gas?
they are connected through the re-bar in the footings of the foundation
Click to expand...

Good question-- I would think that would be compliant as it would be bonded as long as the cee is connected to the service.
 
While this stuff is kind of new in age terms, it was introduced in 1980 by Japan, we started seeing it around 1989 here in Indiana, but back then there was not allot of reporting on it as the causes of fires, I think as more time passes we will see much more and all I can say is I hope no one dies before they remove it from being allowed.

Here is the full final report that The Fire Protection Research Foundation did back in April, 2011 on CSST, on page 17 it clearly shows that even with the bonding it still fails, and in the beginning it states that short of a full lightning protection system there is nothing that will protect it from a direct strike.

From the bottom of page 2:
As a matter of fact, if protection against direct lightning is
not considered for a specific building, we cannot expect CSST to survive such an event.
Click to expand...

Heres the report PDF

It is quit large so it will take a few to down load but all the test and report documents are in it. also it is hosted by NFPA's site
 
Last edited:
don_resqcapt19 said:
The issue is current punching holes in the wall of the tube. If there is not enough current no hole is made. How does giving it a better path to ground limit the current? In my opinion a better path to ground makes the problem worse, not better.
Click to expand...

Don, it is not the current that is punching hole but where there is an arc to either another metallic pathway or even between the ribs, As we know (or should know) lightning is a high frequency event, and many bonds over 10 or 15' serve no useful purpose as these can be very high impedance to lightning, so much so that it has been found that even the distance from one rib to the next can have a difference of potential that the lightning doesn't even have to jump to another path as it can cause the holes just by arcing between the corrugated ribs.
In the last day I have been doing some searches and I have found a couple sites that say NFPA is trying to block the usage of CSST but as it was said it will take many years as much testing has to be done, the problem is the fire reports, most are not done by someone failure with the CSST problem and vital info is being left out.

but as I stated above, I believe that in time the truth will show that this stuff needs to be removed from the market.

I agree with you that just one bond at the entrance of the gas system or to the connector of the CSST will not prevent damage from lightning, it might prevent a few, but we can't go on just a few, it is ether safe or not, one life is one life to many if lost to this tubing.

The link in stickboys post, if you look at the bonding diagram on page 10 that was part of the settlement and see how much bonding they have done, this is much of what I have posted many times on here, providing an alternate pathway from the chimney and other appliances that would allow much of the current and voltage from a lightning strike to flow around the CSST is one of many ways that it would take to half way make this stuff safe, oh and those bonding conductors are much larger and braided flat copper, not just #6.

So in my opinion the cost of properly bonding as has been done in the aforementioned diagram would most likely make CSST not so cheap anymore
 
hurk27 said:
The link in stickboys post, if you look at the bonding diagram on page 10 that was part of the settlement and see how much bonding they have done, this is much of what I have posted many times on here, providing an alternate pathway from the chimney and other appliances that would allow much of the current and voltage from a lightning strike to flow around the CSST is one of many ways that it would take to half way make this stuff safe, oh and those bonding conductors are much larger and braided flat copper, not just #6.
Click to expand...

So maybe I am missing something but what makes the lightning take the path we hope for and not the CSST?

Even with great bonding the CSST will still be a low impedance path and take a great deal of the current.
 
Wayne,
Thanks for reminding me of the impedance issues with lightning current. I was not thinking in those terms.
 
iwire said:
So maybe I am missing something but what makes the lightning take the path we hope for and not the CSST?

Even with great bonding the CSST will still be a low impedance path and take a great deal of the current.
Click to expand...

That is one of the fundamental problems of lightning protection, the high frequency component of lightning can take it on any path that is a low impedance of the frequency at the time of the strike, even the CSST path can be a low impedance or high.

The diameter of the tubing can make it a very low impedance to high frequency's, but since lightning is a variable this frequency is never known until after the strike.

We can only hope that by installing very large flat and wide cables with a large surface area that the lightning will follow our path, the problem is there is just no guarantee that it will follow it.
 
The information I have seen here and on other sites seem to hope that bonding of the CSST might help if a lightning strike is outside the structure but will do nothing if the strike is to the structure itself.
 
RICK NAPIER said:
The information I have seen here and on other sites seem to hope that bonding of the CSST might help if a lightning strike is outside the structure but will do nothing if the strike is to the structure itself.
Click to expand...

So very true, but that is another problem.

Think transformer, A LEMP (Lightning Electro Magnetic Pulse) is the same effect of the primary in a transformer, the current it induces into conductors in a building are the secondary, because of this, this circulatory secondary current is no longer referenced to Earth, grounding and bonding will have no effect in lowing the voltage that can be imposed, this is why in near field strikes we find that even TVSS systems fail to protect electronic appliances.

Think of it this way, this pulse is just like the one produced by an atomic explosion, just not as far reaching, then look at the amount of shielding the military has done to protect vital electronic systems, aircraft industry has also done this because of lightning, now have lightning strike a tree 200' from a unprotected house and you can see the problem.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top