Concrete Encased Electrodes

Status
Not open for further replies.
pete m.

pete m.

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
In the jurisdictions where you may work or inspect I would like to know if a connection to a Concrete Encased Electrode is required.

This seems to be a "no brainer" on new construction but Jurisdictions around where I work have conflicting opinions when it comes to a building addition where there is re-bar installed in the footing and the service equipment is unaltered.

Some will say that the fact that it is only an addition to an existing structure has nothing to do with the fact that the CEE is "present" and there must be an attachment to it. Others say that if the existing service is not altered that no connection to the CEE is required.

I would appreciate any opinions on this as long as your justification is based in code language and not opinion.

Thanks, Pete
 
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
This is in Ohio and from the 2006 Residential Code of Ohio:


"115.4 Additions and alterations.

Additions or alterations to residential buildings shall conform to the requirements of the code for new construction and shall be approved by the residential building official. Additions or alterations shall not be made to an existing building or structure which will cause the existing building or structure to be in violation of any provisions of this code. Except as otherwise provided for in Section R313.1.1, portions of the structure not altered and not affected by the alteration are not required to comply with the code requirements for a new structure."

So I would say yes you would need to use the CEE.
Section 313.1.1 deals with smoke detectors.
 
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
I should have included this:

"115.5 Alterations to systems, components and materials.

Alterations to an existing system (egress, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, etc.) and materials or building components not otherwise provided for in this section shall conform to that required for new construction to the extent of the alteration. The existing systems, materials or components shall not be required to comply with all of the requirements of this code for new construction except to the extent that they are affected by the alteration. Additions or alterations to existing systems materials or components shall not cause them to become unsafe, hazardous, overloaded or become less effective than when originally installed, constructed and/or approved."

Again I say yes because of being affected by the alteration.
 
C

cpal

Senior Member
Location
MA
rcarroll said:
If it's an addition w/o service upgrade or change, we don't require the connection in my town.
Click to expand...

In general the NEC is not a retro applied document (might change in 2011). There is still a fog of war in applying 250.50. but the NEC is (IMO) quite clear. for new installations if 20' of No 4 rod is present it must be included in the GE System. I am not a fan of requiring altering existing concrete to gain access to the Re-Bar ( some have). That language in 115.4 probably needs an offical interpertation to get all the AHJ's on the same page. Ohio must have a process for accomlishing this.

Heck !!!I have a hard time getting theEC to the site to ground the rod before the form guys pour.
 
cadpoint

cadpoint

Senior Member
Location
Durham, NC
This would be a good experiment for you and your drawings. Go ahead and show a big thick line on the plan with the proper definitions, I bet you’ll get a few, “What’s that?”! Spec. it and draw it right on the plan, keep a tally, let us know.

If you refresh your reading of 250.50, it lays out exactly when we use what according to 250.52, and turns it into options of the application to get an end result!

...The existing systems, materials or components shall not be required to comply with all of the requirements of this code for new construction except to the extent that they are affected by the alteration.
Click to expand...

I don’t agree with that total thought!
In the big picture yes this is called grand-fathering, but you right in most causes the type of structure will not be altered but it might well be brought up to current code in respects to occupancy rules, consideration will hopefully address active codes of fire requirements, egress and the like, last I understood that’s why there is architects and engineers.
 
Last edited:
C

cpal

Senior Member
Location
MA
rcarroll said:
Commercial jobs the EC lands the CEE conductor before the pour.
Residential, they connect to a stubbed up rebar, which could be, as you put it, a fog of war. :)
Click to expand...

In this area the electrical inspectors have little to no influance over the form people
 
jxofaltrds

jxofaltrds

Inspector Mike®
Location
Mike P. Columbus Ohio
Occupation
ESI, PI, RBO
cpal said:
I agree but some have required chipping the foundation.
Click to expand...

That is totally unreasonable.

"Additions or alterations to existing systems materials or components shall not cause them to become unsafe, hazardous, overloaded or become less effective than when originally installed, constructed and/or approved."

You have to damage a footer to accomplish this. I say less effective.

Again in Ohio:

"101.3 Intent.

1. Performance. Establish such requirements, in terms of performance objectives for the use intended. Further, the rules shall consider the following:
1.1. The impact that the state residential building code may have upon the health, safety and welfare of the public;
1.2. The economic reasonableness of the residential building code;
1.3. The technical feasibility of the residential building code; and
1.4. The financial impact that the residential building code may have on the public?s ability to purchase affordable housing."

"101.4 Reasonable application.

The rules of the board and proceedings shall be liberally construed in order to promote its purpose."

In my words: "You must use common sense".
And note that the AHJ shall liberally construe.
 
pete m.

pete m.

Senior Member
Location
Ohio
Let me spin this a bit further;

For the areas that do not require utilizing the CEE for a building addition would a new metal water line (that qualifies as a grounding electrode) added to the same addition be ignored also and not made part of the GES?

Pete
 
D

dana1028

Senior Member
Location
San Francisco Bay area
pete m. said:
Let me spin this a bit further;

For the areas that do not require utilizing the CEE for a building addition would a new metal water line (that qualifies as a grounding electrode) added to the same addition be ignored also and not made part of the GES?

Pete
Click to expand...

Ditto - I have the same question. I have seen PVC water service pipe be replaced with copper.
 
ptonsparky

ptonsparky

Tom
Location
NE (9.06 miles @5.9 Degrees from Winged Horses)
Occupation
EC - retired
Recently heard that concrete work was starting at one of my projects. Footings all poured and half the floor. I raised HH because both of the contractors had worked on my basement and were fully informed as to rebar bonding. They bored holes down to rebar so we could get a bond. Same contractor was working on footings a few days later when the area State inspector went to look at temporary I had set. He was informed again of rebar requirements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top