Unique solution to an expensive situation.

[iwire]

Every one else is getting their panties in a wad that this would cost to much.

:roll: Lets keep it professional.

I have no wading issues, but if you do not see a huge difference in price between using what is existing and pulling the feeders out only to put them back in with another conductor I don't know what to tell you.

I have no problem spending the customers money, we make more money on more expensive jobs which is great .... if you get the job. Maybe my area is different but I have to keep a very sharp pencil to get the jobs right now.

 

[acrwc10]

:roll: Lets keep it professional.

I have no wading issues, but if you between using what is existing do not see a huge difference in price and pulling the feeders out only to put them back in with another conductor I don't know what to tell you.

I have no problem spending the customers money, we make more money on more expensive jobs which is great .... if you get the job. Maybe my area is different but I have to keep a very sharp pencil to get the jobs right now.

No what I see is the issue of giving they customer a product that is not verified as safe. Maybe the way some sharpen their pencil should include a disclaimer " to get this job we are willing to cut corners". Is it really worth it to not verify the ground path? I would rather not get the job then comprimise the safety of my work.

 

[hillbilly1]

I may have skimmed over the thread too fast but I thought that was showing that the wire could not be used as the ungrounded conductor because it was obviously in contact with the conduit and would create a parallel neutral current path.

I think the op was using the exsisting ground as a reference point to test the emt for continuity, leaving one end connected at the source. One point that has not been looked at here is, what if the copper ground wire was the source of the higher resistance? The other end may have corrosion in or at the lug, or even paint under a improperly installed lug, in which the conduit may have the lower resistance. If this was a wood building, I would not feel good about using the conduit as a ground, but if it is steel and the conduit is properly straped, I would not have a problem with it. (providing the building steel was properly bonded)

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

I think the op was using the exsisting ground as a reference point to test the emt for continuity, leaving one end connected at the source. One point that has not been looked at here is, what if the copper ground wire was the source of the higher resistance? The other end may have corrosion in or at the lug, or even paint under a improperly installed lug, in which the conduit may have the lower resistance. If this was a wood building, I would not feel good about using the conduit as a ground, but if it is steel and the conduit is properly straped, I would not have a problem with it. (providing the building steel was properly bonded)

Leaves us with perhaps it is steel studs that do not go directly to building steel. They might be grounded by #12 in a box for an outlet or just some MC that ran thru the studs. Not good enough to call a ground for this panel. Simply too many if's to use an ohm reading.

 

[dbuckley]

A multimeter is not a good instrument to test the integrity of a ground path - one should use the right tool for the job, which will put some decent current through the path (e.g. 5A - 50A) which ensures that under load the path can deliver a low resistance connection.

A multimeter only needs a fraction of a milliamp to flow, so a thin shard of metal is enough to show a low measured resistance - a shard that will rupture under fault current causing the ground path to fail completely, with all the problems associated with that..

 

[hillbilly1]

Leaves us with perhaps it is steel studs that do not go directly to building steel. They might be grounded by #12 in a box for an outlet or just some MC that ran thru the studs. Not good enough to call a ground for this panel. Simply too many if's to use an ohm reading.

From my understanding of the original post, this is a panel feeder, so more than likely, it is supported from the building steel, so even if the panel is mounted in a stud wall that does not reach or is connected to the bar joist, it should be physically connected to the building steel either by straps, or threaded rod with hangers. But as you said there are varibles that we do not know about, so it is basically a judgement call for the electrician doing the install.

 

[acrwc10]

Seems to be an OK method to some.
I guess when times get tight quality goes down with the price.
It would make more sense to give a higher quality when the market is tougher, that way you get the HACKS out of the business. We are already seeing it here(CA) The CSLB, contractors state licensing board, sends out a bi-annual letter. In the letter one of the things listed is the revoked licenses, this normally is 3/4 to 1 page. The most resent letter had over 5 pages of revoked licenses. This is a weeding out of people that should not be in the business. Once you have the job the main concern should be doing it well, not cheap. Code minimum is just that MINIMUM, and in most cases it is not even safe. Why because no one checks to make sure that the intent of the code was met, so while it can be said "it meets the code minimum,because you can use EMT as the ground path." no one has "VERIFIED the ground path" and proving the ground path is the true code minimum, not just connecting to the emt as the ground path.

Remember "cream rises to the top". If you are the cream you can give a superior product, at the same price, because you have something the HACKS don't KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE, and it doesn't cost more because you already have both.

 

[acrwc10]

From my understanding of the original post, this is a panel feeder, so more than likely, it is supported from the building steel, so even if the panel is mounted in a stud wall that does not reach or is connected to the bar joist, it should be physically connected to the building steel either by straps, or threaded rod with hangers. But as you said there are varibles that we do not know about, so it is basically a judgement call for the electrician doing the install.

How do you know there are "Bar joist" or "Building steel"? may be type V construction and have non of that.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

From my understanding of the original post, this is a panel feeder, so more than likely, it is supported from the building steel, so even if the panel is mounted in a stud wall that does not reach or is connected to the bar joist, it should be physically connected to the building steel either by straps, or threaded rod with hangers. But as you said there are varibles that we do not know about, so it is basically a judgement call for the electrician doing the install.

Let's not forget none of the clamps or tie wire are listed as grounding clamps. Might do the job but not listed.

 

[hillbilly1]

How do you know there are "Bar joist" or "Building steel"? may be type V construction and have non of that.

See my post that you pasted, I plainly state that we do not know what the conditions are, and it is a judgement call for the electrician.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

Don't for get the tone has been " but it saved money" what more could you want?

How about being focused on the 1 ohm issue, as if this is going to show that the conduit is capable of carrying the currant imposed on it in a fault. I can get 1 ohm or less on a phone cable, it doesn't mean it can handle a 200 + amp fault. The EMT may be just touching at a separated coupling, or be connected to a concentric knock out that is ready to fall out,or a hundred other conditions, that could give a low ohms reading. Once a load is imposed on it it could fail. With out inspecting every inch of the conduit and every connector and coupling in it, you can not say it is an acceptable ground path.
I love how I have read hundreds of times on this forum "if you wire a job to the code minimum it will be the last job you get from that customer" and those same people are arguing here that this method is "acceptable" and the reason they are quoting "because it meets the code minimum". PICK A LANE:roll:

Here is a LANE. The OP felt that this was a code minimum and it saved the customer some money. He asked for input regarding "CODE COMPLIANCE". It is. Now quite a few of you have jumped to the high road about how unsafe it is and have come up these elaborate methods of testing to insure that the emt will carry the fault current. None or which any of you will perform on your own install let alone this one. Get real guys, Forest Gump said it best. "IT HAPPENS" You can" what if" anything to death. In a perfect world you would not have to work or worry about the correctness of anything. All of your needs would be met. Guess what!!!! This ain't a perfect world.

 

[kwired]

... Code minimum is just that MINIMUM, and in most cases it is not even safe.

I hope you did not really mean that. If a standard is not safe what is the point of having the standard. If you were just refering to the install in question then you are entitled to your opinion but you worded it as a general reference to all installs. Not every code minimum standard needs exceeded at all times, some minimums have no alternate that would be a better install aside from brand A vs brand B but code does not recognize either brand just the product type itself.

If minimum standards are not safe we would run RMC to everything and encase it in concrete, we would at least double the size of all conductors just in case, there would not be aluminum conductors, there would not be general purpose enclosures all would be NEMA 4 or higher, the list can be endless - not energizing anything is still the safest way.

Here is a LANE. The OP felt that this was a code minimum and it saved the customer some money. He asked for input regarding "CODE COMPLIANCE". It is. Now quite a few of you have jumped to the high road about how unsafe it is and have come up these elaborate methods of testing to insure that the emt will carry the fault current. None or which any of you will perform on your own install let alone this one. Get real guys, Forest Gump said it best. "IT HAPPENS" You can" what if" anything to death. In a perfect world you would not have to work or worry about the correctness of anything. All of your needs would be met. Guess what!!!! This ain't a perfect world.

Amen.

 

[roger]

Code minimum is just that MINIMUM, and in most cases it is not even safe.

Wrong, if you wire to code requirements you have a safe installation even though this is the minimum. You can exceed this if you and your custmer choose to but it is not necessary for safety.

You would probably be much safer driving a dump truck around town than a new 1/2 ton pick up, but the 1/2 ton pick up is safe even though in this case it only meets required safety parameters, which for lack of better words, is the "bare minimum"


If addopted, the NEC is the minmum requirment but this minimum requirement is well above a safe base line.

Roger

 

[mivey]

Here is a LANE. The OP felt that this was a code minimum and it saved the customer some money. He asked for input regarding "CODE COMPLIANCE". It is. Now quite a few of you have jumped to the high road about how unsafe it is and have come up these elaborate methods of testing to insure that the emt will carry the fault current. None or which any of you will perform on your own install let alone this one.

But I think Jim W made a good point. You are changing what was there by re-purposing the ground wire. What if the ground wire was originally installed because the original contractor knew there was something inadequate about the conduit?

Differance here is if i tie into existing ground wire that is green (or bare) i am not taking on as much liability because it was existing. Removing a ground wire that was there now places liability on you to be sure the EMT is doing its job.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

But I think Jim W made a good point. You are changing what was there by re-purposing the ground wire. What if the ground wire was originally installed because the original contractor knew there was something inadequate about the conduit?

Yes I agree that WHAT IF and the list goes on to infinity. Useing that philosophy the only job that you or anyone else in the EC industry could accept or change would be your own. All others would require testing or complete replacement to satisfy the "What Ifs". What if the OP never posted his solution to this particular job. See where What If is going? The line has to be drawn somewhere. The OP drew his and some of us agree,some What If'd.

 

[mivey]

Yes I agree that WHAT IF and the list goes on to infinity. Useing that philosophy the only job that you or anyone else in the EC industry could accept or change would be your own. All others would require testing or complete replacement to satisfy the "What Ifs". What if the OP never posted his solution to this particular job. See where What If is going? The line has to be drawn somewhere. The OP drew his and some of us agree,some What If'd.

"What If'd" sounds strangly close to "whiffed" doesn't it? :grin:

Was there an agreement on how the conduit should have been tested/certified?

 

[winnie]

If I saw an installation like this, with no neutral, an egc that code 'doesn't require' (the conduit should serve) and oversized to boot (code would allow a #6), then my _guess_ would be that the installation originally had a neutral, used the conduit as an EGC, and was then changed for some reason.

Possibly as simple as the original EC saying 'hmm. we have this neutral here, and it is unused by the loads, so why not just put it to use as a redundant EGC...the next electrician will know what to do if they need a neutral....'

-Jon

 

[Volta]

...Was there an agreement...?

:grin:

____________

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

If I saw an installation like this, with no neutral, an egc that code 'doesn't require' (the conduit should serve) and oversized to boot (code would allow a #6), then my _guess_ would be that the installation originally had a neutral, used the conduit as an EGC, and was then changed for some reason.

Possibly as simple as the original EC saying 'hmm. we have this neutral here, and it is unused by the loads, so why not just put it to use as a redundant EGC...the next electrician will know what to do if they need a neutral....'

-Jon

Do you really think at the cost of wire they ran it accidently ?
If so why waste it as a ground they did not need ?
If my men accidently ran it i would do the smart thing and keep it as a neutral for a future 120 volt load.

The emt is only good as a ground IF it is installed correctly. Was this run ?
The tests that were done do not prove or disprove that it was installed as per code.
The tests only prove we have a low impedance to ground. They do not prove at how large of a fault.
Nothing short of having installed it myself and know i fully inserted the emt into every coupling would be 100% .
Would i do what he did ? Depends on many things. First being why i could not get back to a panel that has a neutral. Could be very time consuming and i have ran into some that might be just short of no way.

What the OP has pointed out is he has a run of emt. He did not say how long that is, only that the next panel was 200 feet. Not cheap but could have pulled that run out and repull with with either a neutral or the 2 wires he needs. Cost was only reason he gave us for going the route he took. NEC never uses cost as a concern.
For now we must assume everything works. The day that matters is when and if he ever has a fault. Bit too late then.

 

[Jim W in Tampa]

" if you wire to code requirements you have a safe installation "
WRONG, all you have is a code compliant install as of the date of install. NEC keeps upgrading requirements because some things in time were not seen as safe. Will admit you have made what is believed to be safe at the time.