grounding electrode conductor

Status
Not open for further replies.
NEC states the grounding electrode conductor must be a continuous unbroken conductor unless assembled with a non reversable crimp. At what point does this grounding electrode conductor end?
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
The gec ends at the point of attachment to the first grounding electrode. The jumpers between electrodes are called bonding jumpers.
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Here's a graphic to outline what Dennis said. The GEC ends at the rod. The conductor to the next rod is the bonding jumper. This would apply to all grounding electrodes.

1113920706_2.jpg
 

anbm

Senior Member
I was under impression that the conductor between the rods or rod and metal pipe/other building grounding system is still called grounding electrode conductor?
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
I was under impression that the conductor between the rods or rod and metal pipe/other building grounding system is still called grounding electrode conductor?


Nope, the GEC ends at the electrode. The connection between two electrodes is made by a bonding jumper and therefore does not have to be continuous or irreversibly spliced.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
Nope, the GEC ends at the electrode. The connection between two electrodes is made by a bonding jumper and therefore does not have to be continuous or irreversibly spliced.
I would have to argue that, perhaps only by intent, the jumper itself is still bound to being continuous or irreversibly spliced.
 

Dennis Alwon

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Chapel Hill, NC
Occupation
Retired Electrical Contractor
I was under impression that the conductor between the rods or rod and metal pipe/other building grounding system is still called grounding electrode conductor?

It is odd because all of it is still part of the grounding electrode system.
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
Read 250.53(C). Still feel that way? :)
250.53(C) sends us to 250.64(A), (B), and (E)... skipping over 250.64(C)... so it is not required. But that doesn't negate intent, does it? But I will agree that any such intent is expressed very obscurely :roll:;)
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
I guess I missed the joke. :)
Yes, you did :grin:

Nevertheless...
Whose intent... not sure what you are saying. The code clearly states it does not need to be continuous but you say the intent is for it to be continuous???:confused:
The code does not clearly state anything on the matter. The absence of something explicit is never a clear statement.

Also, just because continuous is not required does not mean it is not preferred. And preference qualifies as intent... right?
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Smart, I'll put it this way. Around here, I'd never expect to get away with it, so I'd never try; but the code is pretty clear in it's omission.

A couple months ago I put a question regarding even using a bonding jumper to a former electrician who was inspecting a project I was working on. It was an uphill effort to convince him that a GEC to building steel, and then a bonding jumper from building steel to water pipe was an acceptable installation. I imagine it would be a real chore to convince someone in my area that a splice in the middle of that bonding jumper would be ok. :)
 

rcarroll

Senior Member
Smart, I'll put it this way. Around here, I'd never expect to get away with it, so I'd never try; but the code is pretty clear in it's omission.

A couple months ago I put a question regarding even using a bonding jumper to a former electrician who was inspecting a project I was working on. It was an uphill effort to convince him that a GEC to building steel, and then a bonding jumper from building steel to water pipe was an acceptable installation. I imagine it would be a real chore to convince someone in my area that a splice in the middle of that bonding jumper would be ok. :)
Disclaimer: I am not the former electrician turned inspector George is refering to! :)
 

Smart $

Esteemed Member
Location
Ohio
Smart, I'll put it this way. Around here, I'd never expect to get away with it, so I'd never try; but the code is pretty clear in it's omission.
Pretty clear in that continuous conductor or irreversible splicing is not required. So do you want to interpret that as an intent to promote undoable splicing? I think not. I'm fairly certain you will agree there is a major difference between permitting splicing and promoting splicing. So in my mind, intent lies closer to minimal permission and far from promoting ;).

Conceptual intent is the only means by which we can establish an acceptable installation in this regard. Any electrician worth a pound of beans knows that splicing reduces the integrity of a conductor. So where is the line in the sand drawn? Just from your post alone, it seems there are many proponents to no splicing of bonding jumpers is best.

A couple months ago I put a question regarding even using a bonding jumper to a former electrician who was inspecting a project I was working on. It was an uphill effort to convince him that a GEC to building steel, and then a bonding jumper from building steel to water pipe was an acceptable installation. I imagine it would be a real chore to convince someone in my area that a splice in the middle of that bonding jumper would be ok. :)
And in less than 2 months in CO the 2011 NEC will be implemented and that opnion will be even stronger with the addition of 250.68(C). As I interpret it, bonding jumpers from rod to rod are no longer permitted. Bonding jumpers can only be connected to water pipe and (or?) structural steel electrodes (and a GEC must be connected to each in order to do so ;)).
 
Last edited:

jwelectric

Senior Member
Location
North Carolina
And in less than 2 months in CO the 2011 NEC will be implemented and that opnion will be even stronger with the addition of 250.68(C). As I interpret it, bonding jumpers from rod to rod are no longer permitted. Bonding jumpers can only be connected to water pipe and (or?) structural steel electrodes (and a GEC must be connected to each in order to do so ;)).


250.68(C) of the 2011 cycle is a permissive rule and does not mandate anything. It gives permission to use the first five feet of water pipe as a conductor to splice to as well as the metal of a building that meets the requirements. What is does not do in mandate anything.

Also see 250.53(D)(2) where permission is given to bond a rod to the grounding electrode conductor. I suppose this could be done with a split bolt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top