|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
#2306 - 03/03/06 06:15 AM
Re: Bonding steel framing?
|
Secretary
Registered: 10/05/04
Posts: 1622
Loc: City of North Port
|
The comment was made by a PE as follows: The proposed change to the FBC will result in an onerous, expensive and unwarranted additional regulation.
It is unfortunate that someone has been electrocuted due to a wire in contact with a metal framing member. Had existing building regulations been followed – specifically, National Electrical Code (NEC) Article 300.4(B)(1) that requires listed bushings or grommets where cable passes through holes in metal framing – the incident would not have occurred. This requirement was new to the 2002 NEC but there has been a requirement in the code for some time to adequately protect wiring subject to damage. Cables passing through such metal studs are unlikely to be damaged and short to the metal, and hence are unlikely to cause an electrocution type accident.
The NEC in Article 250.110 requires only exposed equipment likely to become energized to be grounded. Metal framing members are neither exposed nor likely to become energized.
A. Impact to local entity relative to enforcement of code:
I disagree with the submitter’s statement that the change has no impact. The existence of bushings/grommets around conductors in a stud wall is easily visually verified. To detect the proper bonding of each and every stud will require the physical handling of every connection to determine that it conforms to code requirements for bonding. Note that sheet metal screws are in general not acceptable for such bonding. A more substantial method is required.
B. Impact to building and property owners relative to cost of compliance with code:
I disagree with the submitter’s negligent cost statement. The additional wire of similar size to the power conductors – already a minimum of 2 conductors plus ground – would raise the material cost by at least 10%. The connection material at each stud plus its installation cost would substantially raise the cost of wiring a dwelling.
C. Impact to industry relative to cost of compliance with code:
I disagree with the submitter’s negligent cost statement. See B above.
Rationale [Provide an explanation of why you would like this Proposed Modification to the Florida Building Code.]:
Bonding of metal framing members already protected from inadvertent energization is an unwarranted belt and suspenders approach to safety.
Please explain how the proposed modification meets the following requirements:
1. Has a reasonable and substantial connection with the health, safety, and welfare of the general public:
No regulation will prevent all accidental electrocutions. The enforcement of existing code provisions provides a reasonable and practical degree of safety that should safeguard persons and property from the electrical hazard alleged here. Florida is not unique in the state’s use of metal framing members.
2. Strengthens or improves the code, and provides equivalent or better products, methods, or systems of construction:
The NEC rules provide reasonable provisions for minimizing the risk of electricity as a source of electric shock. In this case, this nationally recognized standard needs no improvement or strengthening. I don't think the reference to 300.4(B)(1) is accurate. This was not the case. I believe these were cables running parallel with the studs. He does bring up the sheet metal screw issue...
_________________________
Bryan P. Holland, MCP
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered: 02/02/07
Posts: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index
