tmurray
SAWHORSE
That's not like any cap I've ever seen.
Is it... Is it tape?
Is it... Is it tape?
-
Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades
An average day
- Thread starter ICE
- Start date
Beniah Naylor
SAWHORSE
Flashing tape?
Yes that is tape. There will be several condominioms built on the lot. It is not an inspection that I was involved with. A coworker sent the picture. If the lateral is large enough for a dozen condos is a question. But even a temporary seal should at least be a Jem cap.
Mech
Registered User
Do you put electrical tape on it or heat shrink tubing? 
Joe.B
Registered User
I appreciate all of the interesting photos you post of the often "shoddy" work you find. I'm curious though for this one, what exactly is the violation here? Definitely could be one, but I don't see it immediately. Are you complaining about the crimped connection? Looks not-removable to me. and it looks like the actual grounding electrode conductor is one continuous piece, looks big enough, and the armor clad is not even required if that's #6 or larger.
Joe.B
Registered User
Disaster? Same question, what is the violation here?Another disaster.
The wire is #4. The armor shall be bonded at every end. The wire is subject to physical damage and requires protection no matter what size it is.
Joe.B
Registered User
Is that a drive way? Or are you using 250.64 (B)(2) to say that's exposed to physical damage? (2019 CEC) If that's a driveway I'd agree, if it's just a walkway I'd say 250.64 (B)(1) "A 6 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor not exposed to physical damage shall be permitted to run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection" would allow this install w/o the protection and therefore if extra protection is added the way it's shown it's not a violation. This comes down to interpretation and opinion, a very grey and sticky area of the code.
I am seeing this more often. I think that they see a button and assume it is GFCI. Others probably don't know the difference. Sme see the word "combination" and assume the breaker has both. I also think that far too many inspectors miss this.
I
I
Joe.B
Registered User
Is this me setting a bad example for the rest of us again?
steveray
SAWHORSE
I would agree that it is "mostly" along the building construction, so yes, judgment call.....But bonding both ends of the metal "raceway" is not gray at all....250.64E1
Well yes and no. You are correct with regards to the question of whether protection is required. It is apparent that the contractor is in the "it needs protection camp".
I disagree with the contention that "extra" stuff can be provided incorrectly since it is not required to be there. The reason behind the bonding of every end of ferrous metal raceway that protects a GEC has to do with capacitive coupling. How to spell it is where my understanding hesitates. Electric fields inducing a current is for the engineers to explain but suffice it to say the work in the picture is a violation.
A further violation shown is the C-tap. While the C-tap is legal to use, it is not properly crimped as there are no witness marks of a proprietary crimping tool having been utilized.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Great....Now I have to engrave my pliers.....
Joe.B
Registered User
Cool, some new stuff to look up! Love it. So if the contractor had simply omitted the AC it would have been ok, but since it's there it needs to be installed correctly. I can get with that logic. I'll do my research, but do you know if the capacitive coupling would occur during normal operation, or only when there's a fault? Or a lightning strike? Thanks for explaining.
Joe.B
Registered User
Would you consider the AC a raceway or an enclosure? In my mind a raceway or an enclosure brings up very specific things, AC is not one of them, but I'm open to understanding things differently.
During normal operation the GEC and electrodes see no current. Only if there is a blast from lightning, or commingling higher voltage lines with medium voltage would there be a significant role to play. At least that has been explained that way.....but hey now this is the internet and all.
Last edited:
I have over 100 pictures of wrong C-taps and no pictures of proper C-taps. The Tool is supposed to emboss a number in the witness mark. That number is supposed to match the die used that is the right die for the size C-tap. When it is there it is so faint that it is nearly undetectable. Not all manufacturers have that specific tool either. The thing to look for is a straight sided rectangular indent and a damn tight crimp.
The first picture comes close. It looks like a crimper that was fit for the task was used. There appears to be two crimps as would be expected. The trouble is that there are four wires when only two are allowed. Well in all fairness, it's soon to be three wires.
An angry electrician was loose on this one.
Pliers were used.
The last one looks like it had a little bit of both.
Last edited:
A problem with virtual inspections pops up when I see something in a picture that raises questions and I have to wait for an answer. I saw this fitting and now I gotts tah know.
