My Argument with Iwire

[jwelectric]

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:

I don?t know the building codes which regulate the installation of reinforcing bars installed in footers but I am sure that there is a lap distance for a rebar that is tied together and the building codes also regulate the exposed portion of rebar also and I don?t think that exposed reinforcing steel is allowed except where another pour is coming at a latter date and then the building codes requires that the rebar be protected from corrosion during the time it is exposed.

At the present time the only electrode that we are allowed to connect a grounding electrode conductor or bonding conductor to exposed metal is building steel and permission has been given to use the first five feet of interior metal water pipe.
The practice of hitting an exposed piece of rebar is not allowed under today?s NEC.

250.64(F) states that the grounding electrode conductor and/or bonding jumper MUST hit the electrode or a busbar not less than ? by 2 inches.
Nowhere in the 2008 code does it allow hitting an exposed piece of rebar in any manner. The conductor must hit the electrode and the only part of the reinforcing steel that is electrode is that part that is encased by no less than 2 inches of concrete as outlined in 250.52(A)(3).
Therefore unless the conductor is terminated on the inside of the concrete then it is not being terminated on the electrode and is a violation of the NEC.

When I hear someone come out with the comment that the code don?t say I can?t so that means that I can, I can?t help but to think that the code doesn?t say that I am not allowed to relieve myself in an energized disconnect either so using the above statement I suppose that I can. Be back in a few minutes as I have already had several cups of coffee this morning and need some relief and my service is energized.

?.A few minutes goes by??
?.A few more minutes goes by??
?.A few more minutes goes by??
?.A few more minutes goes by??
?.Mike, Mike, Mike where are you???...
Well the code didn?t say he couldn?t so I guess he did. This story shall continue when all the arrangements have been completed. :grin::grin::grin:

 

[Flex]

When I hear someone come out with the comment that the code don?t say I can?t so that means that I can, I can?t help but to think that the code doesn?t say that I am not allowed to relieve myself in an energized disconnect either so using the above statement I suppose that I can. Be back in a few minutes as I have already had several cups of coffee this morning and need some relief and my service is energized.

?.A few minutes goes by??
?.A few more minutes goes by??
?.A few more minutes goes by??
?.A few more minutes goes by??
?.Mike, Mike, Mike where are you???...
Well the code didn?t say he couldn?t so I guess he did. This story shall continue when all the arrangements have been completed. :grin::grin::grin:

So by all rights you can.

 

[George Stolz]

...permission has been given to use the first five feet of interior metal water pipe.

I beg to differ.

I can?t help but to think that the code doesn?t say that I am not allowed to relieve myself in an energized disconnect either...

110.11.

 

[lefty]

drawings

drawings

Hello, new to this so bear with me. What would you think if the NEC had some typical one line drawings or sketches of some sort, to give a typical installation on grounding that follows or precedes the article in the NEC. It has come to my conclusion in the years I've been in the trade there is still some items interprited differently, which I guess keeps us on our toes. But still we had an instance where we had to move the MBJ from the panel which passed and had a passing inspection to x-fmr, and back two different inspectors, same AHJ, every time it moved we would get a passing inspection, different inspectors out of the same office had different interpritation, and insisted his way be followed, we politly objected but in the end we did what we needed to do to get a final inspection to fulfill the contract.

 

[crossman gary]

The practice of hitting an exposed piece of rebar is not allowed under today?s NEC.

Something got lost in the translation. That is exactly the point that Iwire and myself have been trying to make all along.

If you search the forums, you will see that Iwire and others and me (I was posting as Crossman at the time) discussed this very issue over a year ago.

I have no doubt that under the 2008 code, "hitting an exposed piece of rebar is not allowed". You and I agree on that. However, there are plenty of others who say it is allowed. So when the debate insues, one of the methods of arguing a point is by showing the absurdities of the opposite position.

Neither Iwire, nor myself, are advocating taking a bunch of 1 foot pieces of rebar and running them 100 feet to the service, and tieing them together with tiewire. We use this point to show the absurdity of using the rebar above the foundation.

The absurdity is this: If a person takes liberties with the code, and decides it is okay to hit a rebar outside of the concrete, then where does the liberty stop? What stops us from tieing a bunch of rebar pieces together, running up into the bar joists, extending the rebar all the way to the panel, and connecting the rebar to the service equipment.

And the absurdity is this: If a person says it is okay to go beyond the code with the exposed rebar, but then they say it is not okay to extend the exposed rebar with tie-wired rebar pieces, well, they are being somewhat hypocritical.

 

[crossman gary]

Hello, new to this so bear with me. What would you think if the NEC had some typical one line drawings or sketches of some sort, to give a typical installation on grounding that follows or precedes the article in the NEC.

I always thought, somewhat tongue in cheek, that it would be grand to have an NEC picture book of acceptable practices and non-acceptable practices. The acceptable would have check marks, the unacceptable would have the red circle with the diaganol across it. That way, any illiterate goober could make a living as an electrician.

 

[crossman gary]

Originally Posted by jwelectric
"...permission has been given to use the first five feet of interior metal water pipe."

I beg to differ.

George is correct, when you get down to the technicalities.

 

[charlie]

. . . What would you think if the NEC had some typical one line drawings or sketches of some sort, to give a typical installation on grounding that follows or precedes the article in the NEC. . .

Welcome to the Forum!​

90.1(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.

If explanatory material is desired, the NEC Handbook is available and gives a lot of explanations to the reason rules are made and how things are done.

The inspectors in you example need to give you references to back up their desires to have you move the main bonding jumper (actually, the system bonding jumper 250.28). If you look at 250.29(A), you will find the rules for where the system bonding jumper is to be installed and it is in either location. :smile:

 

[Flex]

Welcome to the Forum!​

90.1(C) Intention. This Code is not intended as a design specification or an instruction manual for untrained persons.

If explanatory material is desired, the NEC Handbook is available and gives a lot of explanations to the reason rules are made and how things are done.

The inspectors in you example need to give you references to back up their desires to have you move the main bonding jumper (actually, the system bonding jumper 250.28). If you look at 250.29(A), you will find the rules for where the system bonding jumper is to be installed and it is in either location. :smile:

Wouldnt a qualified electrician be considered a trained person. Therfore it could be spec or an instruction manual for the right people.

 

[iwire]

The NEC is not supposed to be a 'how to guide' or a specification.



There are many laws about driving a vehicle but you can not learn to drive by reading the laws.

 

[lefty]

we were told we would need to get a lawyer and that they were the AHJ. we chose to end it as quickly as we could.

 

[lefty]

I know it is not to be a how to, but in solving a dispute with the AHJ might be made easier.

 

[lefty]

The electrical inspectors in this state are only required to have ceus, no formal education, i think they are to have some experience, i would have to look at the rules to be sure, they still have an exception that gives them the time to take the test and pass it. I don't want to have the NEC to be how to for any goober, ijust thought it might resove issues with the AHJ.

 

[Flex]

The NEC is not supposed to be a 'how to guide' or a specification.



There are many laws about driving a vehicle but you can not learn to drive by reading the laws.

IM poking fun at how literal we take the wording

 

[jwelectric]

permission has been given to use the first five feet of interior metal water pipe.

I beg to differ. .

Care to explain what you differ with?

 

[jwelectric]

Something got lost in the translation. That is exactly the point that Iwire and myself have been trying to make all along.

If you search the forums, you will see that Iwire and others and me (I was posting as Crossman at the time) discussed this very issue over a year ago.

I have no doubt that under the 2008 code, "hitting an exposed piece of rebar is not allowed". You and I agree on that. However, there are plenty of others who say it is allowed. So when the debate insues, one of the methods of arguing a point is by showing the absurdities of the opposite position.

Neither Iwire, nor myself, are advocating taking a bunch of 1 foot pieces of rebar and running them 100 feet to the service, and tieing them together with tiewire. We use this point to show the absurdity of using the rebar above the foundation.

The absurdity is this: If a person takes liberties with the code, and decides it is okay to hit a rebar outside of the concrete, then where does the liberty stop? What stops us from tieing a bunch of rebar pieces together, running up into the bar joists, extending the rebar all the way to the panel, and connecting the rebar to the service equipment.

And the absurdity is this: If a person says it is okay to go beyond the code with the exposed rebar, but then they say it is not okay to extend the exposed rebar with tie-wired rebar pieces, well, they are being somewhat hypocritical.

Please read 250.52(A)(3) and you can see that the tie wire to hold two pieces of rebar together is for the electrode only and does not reach to any exposed rebar which might be allowed in the 2011 cycle.

Should permission be given to extend a piece of rebar out of the footing to land the GEC on the permission to use tie wires to hold two pieces of rebar together would not extend from the electrode to the exposed portion of the rebar.

In order to be the electrode it must be encased in two inches of concrete and the exposed rebar is not encased therefore the exposed part is not the electrode.

Take a 10 foot ground rod and drive it 8 feet into the earth. Is the two feet that is above ground part of the electrode?

Take the simple definition of grounding electrode to decide.

?Grounding Electrode. A conducting object through which a direct connection to earth is established.?

The two feet of the 10 foot rod that is above ground is not in direct contact with earth therefore these two feet are not part of the electrode as defined by the NEC.

Is the five feet of metal pipe that enters a building an electrode? Not by definition nor by the verbiage found in 250.52(A)(1).

?(1) Metal Underground Water Pipe. A metal underground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0 m (10 ft) or more (including any metal well casing bonded to the pipe) and electrically continuous (or made electrically continuous by bonding around insulating joints or insulating pipe) to the points of connection of the grounding electrode conductor and the bonding conductors. Interior metal water piping located more than 1.52 m (5 ft) from the point of entrance to the building shall not be used as a part of the grounding electrode system or as a conductor to interconnect electrodes that are part of the grounding electrode system.?

It clearly makes the statement that the part of the metal water pipe that is underground and in direct contact with earth for 10 feet or more is the electrode.
It then goes on and says that no metal water pipe more than five feet inside the building can be part of the electrode system.

Now just what is part of the electrode system? Anything between the service and earth is part of the electrode system. 250.64(F)(3) allows the use of a busbar and this busbar is part of the system but not an electrode just as the first five feet of metal water pipe inside of a building and in the future the rebar. These are nothing more than somewhere to land bonding jumpers just as with the busbars.

 

[wbalsam1]

Mike Whitt makes sense. It's nice to have "common sense" in this day and age. I nominate Mike to CMP 5! :wink:

 

[crossman gary]

Take a 10 foot ground rod and drive it 8 feet into the earth. Is the two feet that is above ground part of the electrode?

Take the simple definition of grounding electrode to decide.[/SIZE][/FONT]

?Grounding Electrode. A conducting object through which a direct connection to earth is established.?

The two feet of the 10 foot rod that is above ground is not in direct contact with earth therefore these two feet are not part of the electrode as defined by the NEC.

You say the two feet above ground is not part of the electrode.

I say you are misinterpreting what the code says about it.

Notice the term "though which" in the definition. This does not say that "only the portion in contact with earth" can be an electrode. To make that determination, you must go to 250.52 and look at each electrode type individually.

For example, the entire metal frame of the building which meets the criteria in 250.52(A)(2) is an electrode. Yep, even the part on the 2nd floor. The building steel on the 2nd floor is part of the electrode as described in the section.

That the building frame parts which are not in contact with the earth are still considered by the NEC as the electrode, yes, on the 2nd floor, just look at 250.52(A)(2)(3). None of the building frame is even touching earth, yet it is considered as an electrode.

On the entire length of the rod being the electrode rather than just the portion below ground:

First, the definition - the entire rod is a conductive object THROUGH WHICH a direct connection to earth is made. The part of the rod above ground and the interior of the rod is the "through which" part. The very outside layer of atoms of the rod is the part that establishes the direct connection to earth.

Second, 250.52(A)(5) - doesn't say that only the part that is contacting earth is the electrode. It infers that the entire pipe or rod is the electrode.

Third, 250.53(G) - "The electrode shall be installed such that at least 8 feet is in contact with the soil." This infers/establishes that electrodes longer than 8 feet exist, but if you have a longer rod, for example, 10 feet, then you only have to drive it 8 feet.

and read the last sentence of 250.53(G) - "The upper end of the electrode shall be flush with or below ground level unless the aboveground end and the GEC conductor attachment are protected against physical damage.

That last one positively says that if part of the rod is aboveground, it is still an electrode.

The sections definitely refer to the entire length of the rod being an electrode, not just the underground part.

On the the waterpipe and the portion just inside the building... I'll yield to George at the moment. If he doesn't want to attack it, I may myself.

Point is, you can't just use "sense" to determine what the code "says". You actually have to read the various sections and put in the effort to figure out what it literally says. Just because some of us "prefer" it to say something, or just because "it makes sense like that," or just because "I have always done it like that," is not good enough.

Read the book.

 

[crossman gary]

I nominate Mike to CMP 5! :wink:

Me too! Maybe he could change the parts of it which literally don't make sense.

 

[iwire]

For example, the entire metal frame of the building which meets the criteria in 250.52(A)(2) is an electrode. Yep, even the part on the 2nd floor.

I will just add that 250.30(A)(7) confirms that both the entire steel frame and the water line as specified in 250.52(A)(1) including the 5' inside are electrodes.

It is also worth noting that metal water piping in the area of the SDS must be bonded to the SDS but that would not be an electrode if it's more then 5' inside.