• 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

Service upgrade

ICE

ICE

Oh Well
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
12,925
Location
California
The work is sorta strange in that the mechanic was good but the thinker behind it all needs direction.

I almost always have to write a correction for a strap at the over-bored top plate and these guys almost thought of it on their own.

Focus instead on the foam at the top plate penetrations. That's what caught my attention.

They knew it would be required but didn't know what to use. That's where the strange came in. How the Hell would they know that and miss the paint under the clamp.

The work garnered many corrections. I got the impression that this was a first time effort and the corrections are cheap education.

Then the lady that lives there tells me that her husband and several men from his workplace did the work. The husband is a "plumbing engineer" and at least one of his friends is an electrical engineer because where he works, "there is every kind of engineer." Hard to know how this will play out, some engineers take the news better than others.

DSCN2436.jpg


DSCN2439.jpg


DSCN2438.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is the pipe a gas pipe? At least is sticks out from the wall an inch.

See, I am paying attention and learning from the different posts.
 
I've seen much worse from actual "electricians"! For a couple of engineers, it actually doesn't look tooooooo bad........
 
We don't allow that type of foam if it is the insulating type, there is an orange foam or red draft stop product for that use - or we allow mineral wool. Bonding of the gas line is required when using CSST, but I have never seen one bonded that way (if that is a bond).
 
They missed to paint under the clamp because it was the last thing these buddies did, late in the day, 6 beers later.

Ice, it would help some of use if you can point out what other corrections are required. What's wrong with the ground rod clamps? Armor not clamped?
 
&

The gas piping is required to be bonded......See Section G2411.1

in the `06 IRC, ...`09 IRC, & `12 IRC.

The paint is required to be removed before attaching the

clamp......See Article 250.12, `08 NEC.

&
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello,

There are many issues within that picture.

1) Section 300.4(A)(1) - I doubt those nail plates shown meet the 1/16" thickness requirement and I am also sure (my PERSONAL opinion) that the many holes in the plates are not sufficiently protecting those cables.

2.) Section 334.80 - More than two NM Cables containing two or more current carrying conductors installed without maintaining separation through same opening needed ampacity adjustment and corrections.

3.) Section 250.53(G)- Since ground rods are required to be not less than 8' in length and driven to a depth of 8'. (of course there are allowances for rock and so on) so unless these are 10' rods we may have an issue. Not to mention the trip hazard and impalement issue.

4.) Section 110.3(B) - Improperly installed clamps on the Ground Rods. They are actually installed backwards.

And the other issues I believe someone already mentioned so I wont expand on those.
 
Hey Paul, #2- section 334.80 is a correct citation but it will not affect the ampacity as nm, as you know is rated 90C. Based on 310.15(B)(2)(a) you can have up to 9 current carrying conductor without affecting the ampacity of the nm. I guess I am asking why would you cite it.
 
I was more so referring to the issue of the SE Cable that is in the same opening. While the NM is fine and could be as many as (1) 14-3 and (3) 14-2 or (1) 12-3 and (3) 12-2 since even after the adjustment the conductors ampacity would be fine. I would venture to say the SE Cable would not but again the reason I just gave the reference and NM Statement was because I have no idea on what the SE is supplying and the loads associated with it..or even the size conductors for that matter.

However, I am using the 2008 NEC here in VA and if I were on the 2011 Section 334.80 was excluded in Section 338.10)B)(4). Again I posted what the code said and should have mentioned something regarding SE Cable as that was really what I was aiming for..but as always I aim short...and I have to confess I thought I saw (4) 12-2's and an SE Cable...but now that I blow that up I think you are right and only (3) NM's and (1) I will assume 4AWG SER Cable.
 
lol...I said opening...I mean Bored Hole....anyway...i am starting to wonder why I can't see the images as clear as I could when i was in my 20's...hmmm
 
lol...I said opening...I mean Bored Hole....anyway...i am starting to wonder why I can't see theimages as clear as I could when i was in my 20's...hmmm
Click to expand...
What Mother Nature gives, ..Father time takes away! :-o.
 
Paul, short of the armor not being under the clamp, what is backwards on the installation of the clamps?
 
Gregg Harris said:
Paul, short of the armor not being under the clamp, what is backwards on the installation of the clamps?
Click to expand...
I think what Paul is getting at is the back side of the clamp can be reversed. The clamp when bought from the store is designed for water pipes not ground rods unless the back side is reversed. I would need to see the literature but that is my guess. Acorns are what we use
 
Inverting the back of the clamp for the smaller diameter would allow for it to tighten on the rod?
 
Gregg Harris said:
Inverting the back of the clamp for the smaller diameter would allow for it to tighten on the rod?
Click to expand...
Yes. I would not say 100% that it is not tight but that is where Paul is going with it. It looks pretty maxed out right now so it is hard to know if it is as tight as it could be.
 
IMO, these clamps are only rated for pipes 1/2" through 1" water pipes. IMO using it for a rod may be a violation even inverted.
 
&



Applying one of Murphy's Theorems...

Tighten down on the clamp like the Hulk would on a

bad guy's neck, if it breaks, it needed replacing

anyway! :D

&
 
I should clarify that some of these clamps are rated for ground rods but not all of them.

Btw, I have tightened them until they broke and it was an acorn clamp.
 
&



"Btw, I have tightened them until they broke and it was an acorn clamp."
Click to expand...
Say it ain't so Dennis!.......Well then, you have successfullyproven one of Murphy's Theorems.......Congratulations! :cool:

&
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top