Grounding Electrode Conductor run on face of joists

Status
Not open for further replies.
david said:
so you agree that fasting a grounding electrode conductor on the bottom of the joist is meting the requirement of following the building surface when the bottom edge of the joist is continuously above the conductor

and

you agree the grounding electrode conductor is following the building surface when the conductor is fastened to the bottom edge fastened at an angle to the joist?
Click to expand...

The top or bottom of a joist is not considered a building surface. They are considered nailing surfaces. No different than a stud.

Air is not a surface.

So we disagree.

Using running boards in a basement makes no sense to me but the code allows it. Protecting as in you're picture makes more sense.
 
jxofaltrds said:
The top or bottom of a joist is not considered a building surface. They are considered nailing surfaces. No different than a stud.

Air is not a surface.

So we disagree.

Using running boards in a basement makes no sense to me but the code allows it. Protecting as in you're picture makes more sense.
Click to expand...

so are you saying that (C) directs you to fasten a cable(larger than 8/2) to the bottom edge of the joist is directing you to make the installation in violation of code?
 
Mike
I would like to see you concede that the code does not dedicate the bottom side of joist in unfinished basements to somehow allow this space for other trades or building materials and restricts this space from electrical systems. According to your view I would not be allowed to install 3/4 inch conduit on the bottom of the joist in an unfinished basement because these are as you defined nailing surfaces for everything except electrical systems

You should fall back on the physical protection as your reason for not allowing the installation that is a more subjective view and but within your right.

I am going to agree to disagree with you and hopefully I can keep myself from getting pulled back into this thread. I hope others with better skills at debating issue could convince you that this area is not dedicate and restricts electrical installation.
 
Last edited:
Are we talking about "the surface of the building" or "the surface of the building finish"?
I have seen both quoted.
If the basement is unfinished, there is no finish to follow the surface of!

Tapatalk!
 
david said:
Mike
I would like to see you concede that the code does not dedicate the bottom side of joist in unfinished basements to somehow allow this space for other trades or building materials and restricts this space from electrical systems. According to your view I would not be allowed to install 3/4 inch conduit on the bottom of the joist in an unfinished basement because these are as you defined nailing surfaces for everything except electrical systems

You should fall back on the physical protection as your reason for not allowing the installation that is a more subjective view and but within your right.

I am going to agree to disagree with you and hopefully I can keep myself from getting pulled back into this thread. I hoe others with better skills at debating issue could convince you that this area is not a dedicate are restricting electrical installation.
Click to expand...

Who is talking about dedicated space? Not me.

I simply asked a question to ask if maybe the code thought about something in making their decision.
 
jxofaltrds said:
The top or bottom of a joist is not considered a building surface. They are considered nailing surfaces. No different than a stud.

Air is not a surface.

So we disagree.

Using running boards in a basement makes no sense to me but the code allows it. Protecting as in you're picture makes more sense.
Click to expand...

The picture, from the handbook, is not showing protection of a cable as some sections require. It is showing cables installed between firring strips, and yes you do have to keep them 1-1/4" away from the strips but the gist of the picture is just wiring between firring strips. It is/was not intended to show boards installed for protection of cables.

Mike, you need to show us in writing where it says that the bottom edge of a joist is not part of the building surface. I'm not talking about studs, just joists either in an unfinished basement or crawl space.
 
jxofaltrds said:
Who is talking about dedicated space? Not me.

I simply asked a question to ask if maybe the code thought about something in making their decision.
Click to expand...

when you say the GEC is not allowed to be attached to the bottom of the joist because this is a nailing surface you are saying it is dedicated to nailing something so it is not allowed for attaching electrical systems, you may not have used the word dedicate (space) but when you restric something to allow another you are dedicating its use

with that I am done hopefully as I said not to be dragged back in.
 
I think this is what Bill was referring to.
The NM cable is stapled to the underside of the board- no different than parallel with a joist- subject to the same damage or protection. In fact the grounding electrode conductor would be incredibly hard to damage
ry%3D480
 
Dennis Alwon said:
I think this is what Bill was referring to.
The NM cable is stapled to the underside of the board- no different than parallel with a joist- subject to the same damage or protection. In fact the grounding electrode conductor would be incredibly hard to damage
ry%3D480
Click to expand...

Great picture. It shows a compliant installation.

I never disagreed with anyone that it doesn't make sense. Only what the code says.

PS that looks like a crawl and I would not have required running boards or plywood under the NM. I think that in most cases the NM is not subject to damage in a crawl.

PSS new work after a fire?
 
jxofaltrds said:
Great picture. It shows a compliant installation.

I never disagreed with anyone that it doesn't make sense. Only what the code says.

PS that looks like a crawl and I would not have required running boards or plywood under the NM. I think that in most cases the NM is not subject to damage in a crawl.

PSS new work after a fire?
Click to expand...


Yes and we disagree with you and what the code states. You still have not shown us where it is not compliant to install a grounding electrode conductor to the bottom of the joist. Please do not quote protection from damage as that is bogus in light of what you see in the graphic.

The 2011 NEC requires those boards in crawls also unless you drill it. Fortunately we have a state amendment which crosses out crawl spaces in that section.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Yes and we disagree with you and what the code states. You still have not shown us where it is not compliant to install a grounding electrode conductor to the bottom of the joist. Please do not quote protection from damage as that is bogus in light of what you see in the graphic.

The 2011 NEC requires those boards in crawls also unless you drill it. Fortunately we have a state amendment which crosses out crawl spaces in that section.
Click to expand...

Let's forget my bogus opinion.

"A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from
exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run
along the surface of the building construction without metal
covering"

So if is free from exposure to physical damage it is allowed to:

"A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from
exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run
along the surface of the building construction without metal
covering"

Post #17 explains how most view it.
 
Mike again you go back to physical protection. So tell me why the NEC allows a running board for NM, which is certainly more susceptible to physical damage then a solid #6, but you consider the bottom of a joist susceptible to damage-- this is your opinion and your right it is not popular and it is certainly not consistent with other parts of the code.

The idea is that the smaller cables will sag more so they need a solid surface. The grounding electrode conductor will have that solid surface. As I said before subject to damage is subjective and I think most here do not think the grounding electrode conductor running parallel to the joist is considered subject to damage-- I'll leave it at that.
 
Dennis Alwon said:
Mike again you go back to physical protection. So tell me why the NEC allows a running board for NM, which is certainly more susceptible to physical damage then a solid #6, but you consider the bottom of a joist susceptible to damage-- this is your opinion and your right it is not popular and it is certainly not consistent with other parts of the code.

The idea is that the smaller cables will sag more so they need a solid surface. The grounding electrode conductor will have that solid surface. As I said before subject to damage is subjective and I think most here do not think the grounding electrode conductor running parallel to the joist is considered subject to damage-- I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Dennis get away from the damage part for a second. I agree - what is the difference between #4 and #6. Silly rule but it is a rule.

We have 'switched' back to running with the surface of the structure from post # 17. My examples that got everyone wacked out was me showing how I might come to a conclusion.

Again most of us do not consider it "running with the surface".

If it is subject to damage then it can not be run along the surface in any direction.

If you ran it on the side of the joist -OK with me.

On the bottom of the joist - I and most others consider it subject to damage because the bottom is a nailing surface.
 
Explain to me how the bottom of a joist is a nailing surface if the wire is there. The reason for the 11/4" rule is because someone can install a covering on the wall and potentially hit the wire. When it is run on the bottom of the joist it is follow the building surface. You are adding your own interpretation by saying it is a nailing surface. For that matter the #4 and larger wires as also run on nailing surfaces and perpendicular but it is allowed. So you are okay with that but you don't seem to follow thru with the thinking. I explain earlier why I thought the larger cables were allowed on the bottom-- it may also be they don't want the floor joists butchered.

I am afraid I don't see it that way so again we will have to be agree to disagree.
 
Inspector Mike is just another example of another inspector trying to twist the code into his own interpretation of what his mind thinks it should say.

He cannot stand on a specific code reference so he uses the physical damage or 90.4 argument to get his way.

Can someone please remind him of "Charlie's Rule"?
 
Nom Deplume said:
Inspector Mike is just another example of another inspector trying to twist the code into his own interpretation of what his mind thinks it should say.

He cannot stand on a specific code reference so he uses the physical damage or 90.4 argument to get his way.

Can someone please remind him of "Charlie's Rule"?
Click to expand...

No good argument so attack the poster. I am just telling you how it is interpret in all the areas that I work. So the 40 or 50 inspectors around here are idiots too. Post #17 tells you the same thing as to the #6.

Explaining why you can't use the bottom of the joist along its length is making my head hurt.
 
jxofaltrds said:
No good argument so attack the poster. I am just telling you how it is interpret in all the areas that I work. So the 40 or 50 inspectors around here are idiots too. Post #17 tells you the same thing as to the #6.

Explaining why you can't use the bottom of the joist along its length is making my head hurt.
Click to expand...

That's because you are using the reason a conductor can't be used based upon the reason that cables can't be used. They are not the same. In sections that apply to BOTH conductors and cables, it is precisely written that way. For example, look at 310.8 (A) Dry Locations.

"Insulated conductors and cables used in dry locations shall be......."

If you drop the rules that do not apply directly to the GEC, you don't have much of a case other than conjecture and assumption. Even the 1-1/4" rule in 300.4 only applies to cables and raceways. If it applied to conductors, it would say "Conductors, Cables and Raceways".
 
K8MHZ said:
That's because you are using the reason a conductor can't be used based upon the reason that cables can't be used. They are not the same. In sections that apply to BOTH conductors and cables, it is precisely written that way. For example, look at 310.8 (A) Dry Locations.

"Insulated conductors and cables used in dry locations shall be......."

If you drop the rules that do not apply directly to the GEC, you don't have much of a case other than conjecture and assumption. Even the 1-1/4" rule in 300.4 only applies to cables and raceways. If it applied to conductors, it would say "Conductors, Cables and Raceways".[/QUOTE]

Yes. I was trying to show how an inspector might interpret subject to damage. Never said it referred to the GEC verbatim.

Would you rather I just pointed to the GEC and say "that's subject to damage" (90.4 :happysad:) or take the time to explain why I think it is.
Click to expand...
 
jxofaltrds said:
K8MHZ said:
That's because you are using the reason a conductor can't be used based upon the reason that cables can't be used. They are not the same. In sections that apply to BOTH conductors and cables, it is precisely written that way. For example, look at 310.8 (A) Dry Locations.

"Insulated conductors and cables used in dry locations shall be......."

If you drop the rules that do not apply directly to the GEC, you don't have much of a case other than conjecture and assumption. Even the 1-1/4" rule in 300.4 only applies to cables and raceways. If it applied to conductors, it would say "Conductors, Cables and Raceways".[/QUOTE]

Yes. I was trying to show how an inspector might interpret subject to damage. Never said it referred to the GEC verbatim.

Would you rather I just pointed to the GEC and say "that's subject to damage" (90.4 :happysad:) or take the time to explain why I think it is.
Click to expand...

If you could convince me that a particular installation was exposed to damage, I would change it. BUT, simply saying that ALL GECs running along the bottom of a joist are exposed to damage would not be acceptable.

An explanation of why the conductor would be considered exposed to physical damage would be in order. If you were to say someone might stick a nail through it and it's in a place where that would never happen, I think you would be in error. The same for the assertion that someone may hang something from it. It it's in a location that that wasn't at all likely, again, it would be erroneous to use that as a reason to fail the run.

Now, it may be fair to say that in MOST cases, such a run for the GEC would expose it to damage. But I don't think it's correct to say the same for ALL runs on the bottom of a joist.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top