ECN Electrical Forum - Discussion Forums for Electricians, Inspectors and Related Professionals
ECN Shout Chat
ShoutChat
Recent Posts
Do we need grounding?
by gfretwell - 04/06/24 08:32 PM
UL 508A SPACING
by tortuga - 03/30/24 07:39 PM
Increasing demand factors in residential
by tortuga - 03/28/24 05:57 PM
Portable generator question
by Steve Miller - 03/19/24 08:50 PM
240V only in a home and NEC?
by dsk - 03/19/24 06:33 AM
New in the Gallery:
This is a new one
This is a new one
by timmp, September 24
Few pics I found
Few pics I found
by timmp, August 15
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 96 guests, and 10 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 101
M
Member
It is not a Mass amendment 410.16 (C) Is NEC meaning it should apply to all in 2008 NEC.

Stay up to Code with the Latest NEC:


>> 2023 NEC & Related Reference & Exam Prep
2023 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides

Pass Your Exam the FIRST TIME with the Latest NEC & Exam Prep

>> 2020 NEC & Related Reference & Study Guides
 

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 163
D
Member
It's been awhile since anyone voiced an opinion here.

But - the Building Codes reference 1000's of Standards depending on the subject.

This subject under discussion here - 'lighting fixtures in T-Bar ceilings' is covered under Standard 25-2 [Metal Suspension Systems for Acoustical Tile & For Lay-In Panel Ceilings]

Section 25.213 [of Standard 25-2] - Lighting Fixtures
[There's lot of info here]

1. All lighting fixtures shall be positively attached to the suspended ceiling system.

2. Lighting systems weighing less than 56 pounds shall have, in addition to the requirements listed above, two No. 12 gage hangers connected from the fixture housing to the structure above. These wires may be slack.

So - there is no reason these 'additional' wires should have an impact on the T-bar grid.

And - this is where these building inspectors get their nebulous understanding of why additional wires are required on lay-in light fixtures.

Very few, if any, inspectors could provide you with a code section or document showing why these additional wires are required....it is just something they picked up over the years.

BTW - all these standards used to be published in the building code books...now-a-days the codes just reference the standards...which requires you to purchase these standards individually...quite pricey.

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,273
T
Member
Out my way...

We're required to paint/mark OUR seismic wires differently than the grid crew.

Beyond that, we're required to run wires to even the dinky fixtures.

This all goes back to a Southern California earthquake caught on security tape. The retailer had been built without seismic wires for the fixtures. They ALL hopped up, out and down onto the shoppers below... after which the hot connections popped open. ( The only remaining support being Greenfield )

Thusly, I've ended up being forced to install wire.

http://www.constructionfastening.com/lagmasterplus.html

And for demolition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYB6XCpifPk&feature=related



Tesla
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,273
T
Member
http://www.strapperpoles.com/

Check this tool for setting wire.


Tesla
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 984
Likes: 1
G
Member
I became a big believer of additional supporting means on the day when I saw the suspended ceiling of a room at a plant where I worked come crashing down without any warning. People got hit with the lay-in panels and a few of them got dinged with the grid...but the lights themselves were all still hanging from their independent support wires.

I don't know who decided to mandate that in the plant, but it sure saved a lot of injuries that morning.


Ghost307
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381
Likes: 7
Member
To continue, Thanks to Tesla for the links, very interesting items.

Dana has some good points with references, but...it's not within the NEC jurisdiction.

Ghost indicated a real life situation of a ceiling collapse with only a few minor injuries, because the lay-in fixtures were independently secured.

All that said, I can only enforce the NEC. The Building Inspector has to enforce the Building Codes as adopted within the NJ UCC.

BTW, most sparkies here do support the lay-ins, and secure them to the grid.


John
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,928
Likes: 34
G
Member
The biggest place I saw violations was when they shuffled around offices after the initial permit and these seldom ever got any kind of inspection.
If someone decided a troffer would be better, over a square or two(as far as the whip would allow) they moved it. If there were supplemental wires they seldom got moved. The light was just dropped into the grid.
I have seen total office remodels with walls moved, HVAC reducted <is that a word?> and new circuits run ... no permit at all. This may be done by the "building maintenance staff" not a contractor.
I don't think I ever saw a permit for a computer room rewire.


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 7,381
Likes: 7
Member
Greg:
Usually the 'sins of the past' (unpermitted work) wind up as an 'extra' for the now office building.

Believe it or not I just had a inspection for 168 replacement voice/data lines!



John
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,928
Likes: 34
G
Member
Amazing! Maybe there is some progress going on


Greg Fretwell
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,233
H
Member
John,

This past month or so, I was inspecting a hospital where they took all of the ceilings down. There was asbestos removal and while the ceiling and grid were down, they removed a lot of the old wire above the ceiling, attached new grid cabling and re-mounted all of the new grid lights.

Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5