Inspector requires Bonding to steel copper

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bgelectric

Senior Member
The inspector is requiring all steel I beams to be bonded with a continuous conductor.
The building is wood frame with steel I beams and posts throughout not interconnected through foundation rebar or any way.
Also have pex tubing run through out the building with copper stubs poking through the walls. He wantes all these pieces of copper bonded together.
Can someone give me an exact code reference for this if any?
 
bgelectric said:
The inspector is requiring all steel I beams to be bonded with a continuous conductor.
The building is wood frame with steel I beams and posts throughout not interconnected through foundation rebar or any way.
Also have pex tubing run through out the building with copper stubs poking through the walls. He wantes all these pieces of copper bonded together.
Can someone give me an exact code reference for this if any?
Click to expand...

The reference for the copper stubs, would be either 250.104 (A) or possibly (B). But those sections only require bonding if you have a metal piping system. You have a plastic piping system with some copper stubs.

The reference for the steel would be 250.104 (C). But if you read that section, for the steel to require bonding, it would need to be exposed (I assume it will be covered when the building is finished) and it would need to be interconnected to form the building frame. It would also need to be "likely to become energized".
 
The inspector, IMO is wrong in asking for the steel beams to be bonded on a wood construction structure. Are they likely to be energized-- what code section is he citing?
 
bgelectric said:
The inspector is requiring all steel I beams to be bonded with a continuous conductor.
The building is wood frame with steel I beams and posts throughout not interconnected through foundation rebar or any way.
Also have pex tubing run through out the building with copper stubs poking through the walls. He wantes all these pieces of copper bonded together.
Can someone give me an exact code reference for this if any?
Click to expand...

I agree with Dennis, and to reinforce it, it is the Inspector's role to cite his reference, then you can show him if he is wrong, not the other way around.
 
IMHO, the building steel by virtue of the way it installed determines if it is an acceptable electrode and part of the GES. In your case, the steel doesn't meet the definition of an electrode. It also most probably isn't likely to become energized. I think the AHJ got it wrong. I see no need to bond it all together.
 
bgelectric said:
The inspector is requiring all steel I beams to be bonded with a continuous conductor.
The building is wood frame with steel I beams and posts throughout not interconnected through foundation rebar or any way.
Also have pex tubing run through out the building with copper stubs poking through the walls. He wantes all these pieces of copper bonded together.
Can someone give me an exact code reference for this if any?
Click to expand...


Take a look at 250.4 (4) Bonding of Electricaly Conductive Materials. Normally non current carring conductive materials that are likely to become energized shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a manner that establishes an effective ground fault current path.


The key to this would be "likely to become energized". Are the building wires run along the beams in contact?

As fare as the copper stubs are conscerned there is no requirements to bond them.
 
I would basically agree with the others. Just to cover a remote eventuality since you mentioned "posts" in your OP. If those posts happen to be in contact with the earth for 10ft or more it might be looked at differently.
 
bgelectric said:
The inspector is requiring all steel I beams to be bonded with a continuous conductor.
The building is wood frame with steel I beams and posts throughout not interconnected through foundation rebar or any way.
Also have pex tubing run through out the building with copper stubs poking through the walls. He wantes all these pieces of copper bonded together.
Can someone give me an exact code reference for this if any?
Click to expand...

Even if bonding is required why would it need to be a continuous conductor? He needs to quote chapter and verse.

Personally, I think it should be required, but that is just an opinion and not code.
 
Gregg Harris said:
Take a look at 250.4 (4) Bonding of Electricaly Conductive Materials. Normally non current carring conductive materials that are likely to become energized shall be connected together and to the electrical supply source in a manner that establishes an effective ground fault current path.


The key to this would be "likely to become energized". Are the building wires run along the beams in contact?

As fare as the copper stubs are conscerned there is no requirements to bond them.
Click to expand...

NO, no wires are run along the beams. The reason I didnt ask for a code reference right off is because I thought maybe its something I just haven't run into yet.
I guess now im seeing that there isnt any code to reference.

Hes concerned about it being continuous but not about mechanical lugs being concealed :?
 
bgelectric said:
NO, no wires are run along the beams. The reason I didnt ask for a code reference right off is because I thought maybe its something I just haven't run into yet.
I guess now im seeing that there isnt any code to reference.

Hes concerned about it being continuous but not about mechanical lugs being concealed :?
Click to expand...

Never never never ever be afraid to ask for a reference. If someone gets mad at you it just means that they can not support what they are telling you! Happens to me all the time. ;)
 
augie47 said:
I would basically agree with the others. Just to cover a remote eventuality since you mentioned "posts" in your OP. If those posts happen to be in contact with the earth for 10ft or more it might be looked at differently.
Click to expand...

I learned one thing in another life which was that (at that time) our state still allowed post construction for house construction, should I say continual post construction(wood alone); a wall of posts not just pole contruction or verses a continual foundation of other material's.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top