Pix...Resi steel

Status
Not open for further replies.
electricmanscott

electricmanscott

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
Would you do anything with the steel in these pictures as far as grounding and bonding goes and what NEC rule would cause you to do it?

Steel beam spanning two car garage set on two steel columns. Will be fully concealed within the building finish.

mcgar.jpg


Two ceiling beams for added structure sitting on wood walls and wood lvl.


mcbed.jpg


Deck framing. Columns seen in foreground of picture are mirrored close to the house. (can't be seen in photo) All steel will be boxed in with colums, ceilings and decking, none will be exposed.
mcdeck.jpg
 
Last edited:
I would not bond.
250104(C)

I do not think any of that is "likely to become energized".
The 1st 2 pictures are also not "interconnected to form a metal building frame" or "exposed"
 
IMO bonding not required.

But judging from Scott's comments I suspect the EI feels differently. Who really gets to decide what is 'likely to become......


Thinking a bit more .... the steel for the decks might need to be considered an electrode.
 
I don't think the guy owns a steel company, although his name is Ted Iownasteelcompany. :wink:

IMO the NEC does not require any bonding for any of this steel.

As for the deck steel as an electrode. I don't think it meets the criteria.

I am wondering if it would be effective though.

There are eight columns on 16X16 concrete footers that go at least four feet into the ground. Each has four long 1/2" anchor bolts set into the footer.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it is required, but I am guessing that if the EI thinks it needs it, that the cost of not doing it might be higher than just doing it.
 
JohnJ0906 said:
I would not bond.
250104(C)

I do not think any of that is "likely to become energized".
The 1st 2 pictures are also not "interconnected to form a metal building frame" or "exposed"
Click to expand...

Would they be "likely to become energized" if someone ran NM along them?

I have never liked the term "likely" because it is never defined anywhere and where it is used in different places, from context it clearly means radically different things.

In some cases it is clear that it does not mean something might happen, but that it will, but just rarely. In other cases it is pretty clear the authors really meant something that should never happen, but might in case of some extraordinary event. The term "unlikely" is also used. One would think that "not likely" and "unlikely" might be the same thing, but again, from context, the code does not use them that way.

OTOH, it is very clear these chunks of steel do not constitute a GE. So what size wire would you use to bond them?
 
I have commented on the term "likely" in the past. In older additons of the code the word was "may". Given that neither is defined in the NEC, then we fall back to the common definitions of the words. When the word was "may", it is my opinion, that the steel in question would have been required to be bonded as it is "possible" (may) that it would become energized. The possiblity might be very remote, but it is possible. Now with the word "likely" I don't see a requirement to bond this steel because the requirement has changed from "may" (possible) to "likely" (probable). Please note that CMP 5 does not agree with me as they are on record as saying the two words have identical meanings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top