My Argument with Iwire

[jwelectric]

And that brings up an excellent point: In states with licensing laws for electricians, only licensed electricians are allowed to install electrical equipment. I agree completely. The reinforcing steel in the slab is electrical work. About time we got this fixed.... more work for me!

Of course, this makes the metal underground waterpipe also within the realm of electrical work. And the building steel too.... metal water well casings... underground metal tanks... other metal piping systems underground.... all of that is electrical equipment.



The reason it is allowed to do that isn't because the building steel is a bonding jumper. It is because 250.52(A)(2) says that the entire metal frame of the building is the electrode. yes, even the aboveground portions, all the way up to the roof. If any of the items 1 to 4 are accomplished, the whole thing is an electrode.

Then I suppose that items such as heat and air conditioning along with water heaters and such must now be installed by licensed electricians.

Now does this mean that licensed electricians are going to be required to obtain and maintain licenses in HVAC and Plumbing????????????

There are many electrical items installed every minute of the day by someone other than licensed electricians. At least here in NC it requires a licensed electrician to connect them to the premises wiring but nothing requires them to install the air handler or the outside unit or even to install the water heater.

With this in mind I suppose that allowing the general contractor to install the rebar would not be that far out of line or to allow the well people to install the well casing would be to far fetched either.

 

[crossman gary]

Just so there is no confusion, this is what you said:

permission to use steel as a bonding jumper is found in 250.52(A)(2)

I offered that that section 250.52(A)(2) says nothing about bonding jumping jumpers. It says nothing about bonding jumpers being made of steel.

Then you reply that it is okay to attach bonding jumpers to the building steel according to 250.64(F)as quoted below:

See 250.64(F)

If the steel of a building is the electrode as outlined in 250.52 then a bonding jumper can hit this electrode any where convenient and accessible.

While I do not dispute that a bonding jumper can be attached to the building steel, this has absolutely nothing to do with your original statement that 250.52(A)(2) permits a bonding jumper to be made of steel.

250.64(F) has nothing to do with a bonding jumper being made of steel. 250.52(A)(2) has nothing to do with a bonding jumper made of steel either.

Now, if you look at 250.102(A), you may have an argument on bonding jumpers made out of steel. But since we are discussing GEC bonding jumpers, I would submit 250.62 would apply, and 250.62 does not allow steel as the GEC.

But 250.64 just doesn't get there from here.

 

[crossman gary]

With this in mind I suppose that allowing the general contractor to install the rebar would not be that far out of line or to allow the well people to install the well casing would be to far fetched either.

Okay, you got me on that one. Your logic is sound.

 

[jwelectric]

I think that we are starting to cloud the issue at hand with talk about plumbers and HVAC people or anything other than the concrete encased electrode.

The question at hand is if the exposed part of rebar is electrode or not and I contend that the verbiage found in the 2008 code says NO.
I also contend that the first five feet of metal water pipe is not electrode either.

Now comes the question, ?if it is not electrode just what is it??

I can?t be the grounding electrode conductor simply because the NEC does not allow a reversible connection of one type of GEC to another GEC but the NEC does allow the termination on the first five feet of water pipe on the inside of a building. Next cycle it will allow something similar for rebar unless we destroy what has already been done by arguing that it must be either the electrode or the conductor.

The comment of the Code Making Panel is very clear to anyone who doesn?t want to waste a bunch of time arguing that it must be either the electrode or the GEC.
I simply accept it for what it is, a place that I am allowed to terminate the Grounding Electrode Conductor before I actually hit the electrode itself.

Panel Statement: Only the portion of an electrode that is in contact with the

earth can be called an electrode. The exposed portion of the rebar could be
used as a connection point but cannot be considered as the electrode.

I see nothing hard to understand about their statement and fail to see where anyone else could misunderstand what they are saying either.
It seems that there a few that wants the NEC to be turned into an installation manual instead of a code book with a detailed explanation of every word written therein.

 

[crossman gary]

The question at hand is if the exposed part of rebar is electrode or not and I contend that the verbiage found in the 2008 code says NO.

agreed

I also contend that the first five feet of metal water pipe is not electrode either.

agreed

Now comes the question, ?if it is not electrode just what is it??

I(t) can?t be the grounding electrode conductor simply because the NEC does not allow a reversible connection of one type of GEC to another GEC but the NEC does allow the termination on the first five feet of water pipe on the inside of a building. Next cycle it will allow something similar for rebar unless we destroy what has already been done by arguing that it must be either the electrode or the conductor.

agreed

The comment of the Code Making Panel is very clear to anyone who doesn?t want to waste a bunch of time arguing that it must be either the electrode or the GEC.

agreed

I simply accept it for what it is, a place that I am allowed to terminate the Grounding Electrode Conductor before I actually hit the electrode itself.

That is prudent

I see nothing hard to understand about their statement and fail to see where anyone else could misunderstand what they are saying either.

Seems clear to me

It seems that there a few that wants the NEC to be turned into an installation manual instead of a code book with a detailed explanation of every word written therein.

I wouldn't go that far. Some of us just like "detailed discussions" about the NEC.

I think one of the things that comes into play in these discussions is that sometimes the inspector on the job or the EC wants to take the exact literal wording of the NEC, and other times they want to apply "the intent" of the NEC.... you know, they want it both ways, and choose which to use to their advantage. Some say to use "common sense" while others are going word for word like a lawyer looking for a loophole.

All of this is okay on this forum. There is no harm in the discussion as long as someone is learning, or even if they are just spending time in the code book becoming more familiar with it. Hey, do we get bogged down in semantics sometimes? Sure. But I sure learn alot and get some enjoyment from it too.

 

[iwire]

I see nothing hard to understand about their statement and fail to see where anyone else could misunderstand what they are saying either.

Neither do I, but their statement has to do with the future language in the NEC not the present language so now who is trying to cloud the present issue?

I must conclude that you would be fine with 100' of exposed rebar being the connection to the CCC and that the 100' could be made up of 100 one foot sections of rebar tied together with tie wire. :smile:

 

[jwelectric]

Neither do I, but their statement has to do with the future language in the NEC not the present language so now who is trying to cloud the present issue?

I must conclude that you would be fine with 100' of exposed rebar being the connection to the CCC and that the 100' could be made up of 100 one foot sections of rebar tied together with tie wire. :smile:

How could anyone tie 100 one foot pieces of EXPOSED rebar together and then use this as the connection point?

Look at what the NEC has to say.

(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode. An electrode encased by at least 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete, located horizontally near the bottom or vertically, and within that portion of a concrete foundation or footing that is in direct contact with the earth, consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of one or more bare or zinc galvanized or other electrically conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods of not less than 13 mm (? in.) in diameter, or consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of bare copper conductor not smaller than 4 AWG. Reinforcing bars shall be permitted to be bonded together by the usual steel tie wires or other effective means. Where multiple concrete-encased electrodes are present at a building or structure, it shall be permissible to bond only one into the grounding electrode system.

Only the electrode is addressed when speaking of tying 100 one foot pieces of rebar together not the piece stubbed out for a termination point.
Nowhere in the proposal does to allow the use of tie wires for the portion of exposed rebar either.
Maybe someone should send in a comment clearing this up. Let the comment say that should it be needed 100 one foot pieces of #4 rebar can be tied together with the usual tie wire used on the electrode for the point of termination. How much debate do you think this would generate with the Code Panel? :grin:

 

[radiopet]

For the record, I have no problem with the portion of the REBAR being used as a conection point...being just that...a connection point. I believe the language should reduce the exposed distance of this like it does with the 5' water pipe connection but thats as far as I would go.
Any compliant installation can be made non-compliant with a little time on their hands so i vow to keep it simple, keep it direct and emply the CMP to keep it clear.

 

[iwire]

How could anyone tie 100 one foot pieces of EXPOSED rebar together and then use this as the connection point?

Because there is nothing that says I can not and it actually says I can.:smile:

Reinforcing bars shall be permitted to be bonded together by the usual steel tie wires or other effective means.

There is nothing in that section that limits this splicing to inside the concrete. I am sure we can assume that they mean inside the pour but that is not what they said.

I believe the language should reduce the exposed distance of this like it does with the 5' water pipe connection but thats as far as I would go.

I agree, and have said similar before.

 

[George Stolz]

I've got some time this morning, so I believe I will write my rough draft of my comment to the proposal in question.

1. Section/Paragraph: 250.52
2. Comment on Proposal No. (from ROP): 5-157 Log #3051
3. Comment recommends: Revised Text
4. Comment: To be generated later, revising the definition of Water Pipe as well.
5. Substantiation: The reason my comment has brought a neighboring electrode into the discussion of this proposal is that this is an issue that effects all electrodes in scope. I hope the panel will forgive the more pedantic portions of my substantiation; in my opinion it's necessary to carefully examine the relevant sections in question in order to cast light on the main problem that the proposal brought to light.

All electrodes are equal in reading 250.50. All electrodes that are present are required to be used. 250.64 is clear, in that a Grounding Electrode Conductor (GEC) is a conductor that begins at the neutral busbar of the service equipment on one end, and terminates at a grounding electrode. (I will ignore the grounding busbar option for clarity.)

The panel's response to this proposal was, "Only the portion of an electrode that is in contact with the earth can be called an electrode. The exposed portion of the rebar could be used as a connection point but cannot be considered as the electrode."

The problem with this statement is that we cannot legally connect a GEC to anything besides a grounding electrode. We can't connect to something that looks like a grounding electrode, but is not. Only that portion of a CEE that fully complies with every detail laid out in 250.52(A)(3) is truly a CEE.

The water pipe electrode is in a similar boat. Only that 10' of metallic water pipe in contact with soil is doing the business of grounding. The water pipe is far easier to connect to inside the building, and so installers like to connect to it there. The only way for an installer to legally connect to a CEE outside of concrete, or a water pipe outside of dirt, is for that "electrode" to continue to be a fully qualified "electrode" for our purposes outside the boundaries of the dirt or concrete. We are not allowed to connect GECs to anything else!

In discussions on this topic, it has been brought up that water pipes have an additional provision to restrict us from using piping farther than 5' from the entrance of the building as a grounding electrode, which is true. What is false is that this prohibition gives us permission to connect inside of five feet. Section 90.5 makes it excruciatingly clear that key words inside a phrase make the phrase either mandatory or permissive. If a water pipe ceases to be an electrode once it leaves soil, then every single water pipe installation in the U.S. (even the ones connected to prior to the mid-1980's five foot restriction of it's use) are illegal. We are required to connect to "the electrode." If it is the panel's contention that "the electrode" ends in the soil, then we are not permitted to connect anywhere else.

Building steel is a commonly used "electrode" to interconnect electrodes. Building steel is not going to go anywhere, or change uses in the life of a building, and so therefore there is no harm in doing so. If the panel is going to go on record as saying that only "business portions" of grounding electrodes are actually electrodes, it turns that practice on it's head.

The simplest solution is to simply grant that an electrode continues to be an electrode as long as it is electrically continuous. A water pipe electrode is a water pipe electrode until you run out of pipe and solder, indoors. A CEE is an electrode until you feel exquisitely silly lashing pieces of rebar together with tie-wire (but without concrete encasement) through the interior of a structure. We will still have language to restrict our use of those electrodes to points where they are sound. A water pipe is only sound for electrical use in the first five feet. A CEE is only sound for the first piece of rebar jutting out from the concrete. Building steel is sound infinitely without restriction, as are ground rods, rings, plates.

 

[crossman gary]

I've got some time this morning, so I believe I will write my rough draft of my comment to the proposal in question.

Nice.

I like the fact that you used the building steel as an example of the entire structure above ground is still considered as the electrode and compared that to the other electrodes.

 

[jwelectric]

Because there is nothing that says I can not and it actually says I can.

I would love for you to show where it says that you could use tie wires for the exposed portion of a concrete encased electrode.
The permission to use tie wires to bond the rebar together is found in the section that address the electrode and in order to be the electrode it must be encased in concrete at the bottom of the footer that is in contact with earth.

There is nothing in that section that limits this splicing to inside the concrete. I am sure we can assume that they mean inside the pour but that is not what they said.

Here is a copy and paste of what they said;
?(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode. An electrode encased by at least 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete, located horizontally near the bottom or vertically, and within that portion of a concrete foundation or footing that is in direct contact with the earth, consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of one or more bare or zinc galvanized or other electrically conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods of not less than 13 mm (? in.) in diameter, or consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of bare copper conductor not smaller than 4 AWG. Reinforcing bars shall be permitted to be bonded together by the usual steel tie wires or other effective means. Where multiple concrete-encased electrodes are present at a building or structure, it shall be permissible to bond only one into the grounding electrode system.?
This section is addressing the electrode ONLY. It clearly makes the statement that these tie wires can be used on the electrode and nothing says that any rebar that is exposed can have tie wires.

I agree, and have said similar before.

I personally think it should be limited to no more than 18 inches above the bottom plate.

 

[radiopet]

I personally think it should be limited to no more than 18 inches above the bottom plate.

I have no problem with that....

 

[roger]

Electrically speaking, does any of this matter? Sometimes the code is simply rhetoric or lack of, take your pick

Roger

 

[iwire]

Electrically speaking, does any of this matter? Sometimes the code is simply rhetoric or lack of, take your pick

Electrically speaking I think it might, before I could figure that out I would have to figure out what is expected of the CCC. :grin:


As it relates to the state of the country and world? ......... no not a darn bit.


I blame George, he started this thread. :grin:

 

[roger]

\

I blame George, he started this thread. :grin:

Okay, I'll blame him too, the sorry ....:grin:

Roger

 

[crossman gary]

This section is addressing the electrode ONLY. It clearly makes the statement that these tie wires can be used on the electrode and nothing says that any rebar that is exposed can have tie wires.

And it doesn't say it can't.

Since this section is addressing only the electrode, it has absolutely nothing to say about the aboveground rebar, correct? Nowhere does it say you cannot use tie-wire aboveground?

Since tie-wire is the standard industry method of connecting rebar together, why would we assume, and yes, I said assume, that the tie-wire cannot be used on the rebar which is not in the slab? Where is it prohibited?

If it isn't specifically prohibited, wouldn't the industry standard method apply?

Now, if you look hard, yuo can probably find something in 110 to bust me with.:wink:

 

[crossman gary]

Electrically speaking, does any of this matter? Sometimes the code is simply rhetoric or lack of, take your pick

It matters to those who enjoy discussing rhetoric or lack thereof...

 

[quogueelectric]

I am late to the party but I would definitely consider any rebar attatched to the footing part of the electrode as it has to be connected somewhere like a welding electrode or an oil burner electrode. Grounding electrode def from wilkepedia In electrical engineering, ground or earth may be the reference point in an electrical circuit from which other voltages are measured, or a common return path for electric current, or a direct physical connection to the Earth.


Fig. 1: A typical earthing electrode (left) at a home in Australia. Note the green and yellow marked earth wire.Electrical circuits may be connected to ground (earth) for several reasons. In mains powered equipment, exposed metal parts are connected to ground to prevent contact with a dangerous voltage if electrical insulation fails. A connection to ground limits the voltage built up between power circuits and the earth, protecting circuit insulation from damage due to excessive voltage. Connections to ground limits the build-up of static electricity when handling flammable products or when repairing electronic devices. In some telegraph and power transmission circuits, the earth itself can be used as one conductor of the circuit, saving the cost of installing a separate return conductor.

For measurement purposes, the Earth serves as a (reasonably) constant potential reference against which other potentials can be measured. An electrical ground system should have an appropriate current-carrying capability in order to serve as an adequate zero-voltage reference level. In electronic circuit theory, a "ground" is usually idealized as an infinite source or sink for charge, which can absorb an unlimited amount of current without changing its potential. Where a ground connection has a significant resistance, the approximation of zero potential is no longer valid. Stray voltages or earth potential rise effects will occur, which may create noise in signals or if large enough will produce an electric shock hazard.

The use of the term ground (or earth) is so common in electrical and electronics applications that circuits in vehicles such as ships, aircraft, and spacecraft may be spoken of as having a "ground" connection without any actual connection to the Earth.

 

[roger]

It matters to those who enjoy discussing rhetoric or lack thereof...

Which one? :wink:

Roger