Grounding Electrode Conductor run on face of joists

[jxofaltrds]

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.

Yes that is fair. And we are talking here in most cases not everyone.

 

[Little Bill]

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

I asked this in a previous post but didn't get an answer. How did the discussion go from running perpendicular to parallel when the OP stated that his GEC was running perpendicular to the joists?

Well since it did, I will ask Mike why it's ok to attach to the bottom of a joists, either on running boards or directly, if going across (perpendicular), and it's not ok to attach to the joists if running with them (parallel)?

If your logic (not correct IMO) is because someone might use the bottom as a nailing surface, that doesn't hold water. If it's going across the joists it still is attached to the bottom and you couldn't nail to it that way either. As has been said, if someone wants to finish the basement they will put in a drop ceiling just because of things like this. Probably more duct work and plumbing there already than electrical.

On top of all this, what possible safety reason would there be if:
A nail hit the GEC
A screw hit the GEC
Someone used it as a clothes line
Or if it was pulled completely loose at both ends?

No sparks would fly, no breaker would trip, nothing would quit working.
It's just a GEC! More importantly in the OP's case, it's just a bonding jumper to the water pipes.

 

[jxofaltrds]

I asked this in a previous post but didn't get an answer. How did the discussion go from running perpendicular to parallel when the OP stated that his GEC was running perpendicular to the joists?

Well since it did, I will ask Mike why it's ok to attach to the bottom of a joists, either on running boards or directly, if going across (perpendicular), and it's not ok to attach to the joists if running with them (parallel)?

If your logic (not correct IMO) is because someone might use the bottom as a nailing surface, that doesn't hold water. If it's going across the joists it still is attached to the bottom and you couldn't nail to it that way either. As has been said, if someone wants to finish the basement they will put in a drop ceiling just because of things like this. Probably more duct work and plumbing there already than electrical.

On top of all this, what possible safety reason would there be if:
A nail hit the GEC
A screw hit the GEC
Someone used it as a clothes line
Or if it was pulled completely loose at both ends?

No sparks would fly, no breaker would trip, nothing would quit working.
It's just a GEC! More importantly in the OP's case, it's just a bonding jumper to the water pipes.

Why are running boards safe? Cause the code says so.

Why is the bottom of a joist, along its length, not OK? Common sense.

IMHO the reason for not running on the bottom of the joist is because most inspectors figure the other trades could/would damage the wire. Not because the may finish the basement. This opinion is not in the book. :bye:

 

[Little Bill]

Why are running boards safe? Cause the code says so.

Why is the bottom of a joist, along its length, not OK? Common sense.

IMHO the reason for not running on the bottom of the joist is because most inspectors figure the other trades could/would damage the wire. Not because the may finish the basement. This opinion is not in the book. :bye:

None of what you said is in the book.:happyno:

You haven't shown in any of your posts that running on the bottom of the joists is not permitted by the code.
I give up!:slaphead:

 

[roger]

None of what you said is in the book.:happyno:

You haven't shown in any of your posts that running on the bottom of the joists is not permitted by the code.
I give up!:slaphead:

Little Bill, I think you have summed up the thread and hit the nail on the head as far most of the other posters frustration so, I am closing the thread.

Roger

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I will open this just long enough to state that I presented this question to the cmp members at out yearly state meeting in Raleigh, NC. The simple response from Keith Lofland was , YES, 250.64(B). Dick LLyod another cmp member continued on explaining that the main reason why smaller conductors cannot be run perpendicular is because people tend to hand things on it. He said certain running it on the bottom is not an issue at all and in fact added that the bare #6 was much stronger than the cables anyway and less likely to be damaged.

BTW, the also stated that the grounding electrode conductor does not have a minimum burial depth and that T.300.5 does not apply to the grounding electrode conductor. In fact the 2014 added wording to 250.64(B)- last sentence - that stated the grounding electrode conductor did not have to comply with 300.5