Grounding Electrode System NEC 250-50

Status
Not open for further replies.

mshields

Senior Member
Location
Boston, MA
NEC 250-50 states that all all grounding electrodes as described in paragraghs 250-52 A1 thru A6 THAT ARE PRESENT... shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system.

Paragragh A(3) lists "Concrete-Encased Electrodes" (An Ufer ground right?). A3 goes on to define the criteria which must be met such that it constitutes a grounding electrode.

Here's my question; On large buildings with multiple footings, all of which meet the criteria in (A)3 am I obligated to bond them ALL into the grounding electrode system.

It seems like overkill to do that. Yet, if they all are, by definition, grounding electrodes, doesn't 250-50 tell me that they all need to be interconnected?
 

raider1

Senior Member
Staff member
Location
Logan, Utah
This is a very good question, one that I have questioned myself. I will be interested to see how others are viewing it.

I tend to think that as long as you use one you have meet the intent of the code, but I can see where an argument can be made that all of the CEEs must be used.

Chris
 

Paul B

Senior Member
I don't think so, around here years ago all you needed was a 20 foot long piece of #4 bare copper under the footing or slab.
 

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
Paul B said:
I don't think so, around here years ago all you needed was a 20 foot long piece of #4 bare copper under the footing or slab.
Right. The point is what if there is more than one "footing or slab"?
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
LarryFine said:
Paul B said:
I don't think so, around here years ago all you needed was a 20 foot long piece of #4 bare copper under the footing or slab.
Right. The point is what if there is more than one "footing or slab"?


The requirement is to use all of the available types of electrodes. The type of electrode is described in 250.52(A)(1)-(6). If a building had multiple buried water pipes would you be required to use all of them?
 

pierre

Senior Member
This same question begs us to ask another similar question.

250.50 Grounding Electrode System.
ALL grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(6) that are PRESENT at each building or structure served shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system.

If I have a water pipe that supplies the building and a copper pipe the supplies an outdoor underground lawn sprinkler system (warm part of the country, and the sprinkler system always has water in it), will I be required to also bond and/or use one/both of the water pipes as part of the electrode system?
There is also another metallic pipe that leaves the house and travels underground to garage... is this also part of the grounding electrode system?
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
infinity said:
The requirement is to use all of the available types of electrodes. The type of electrode is described in 250.52(A)(1)-(6).
Trevor, I disagree. We are required to use all electrodes that are described in (A)(1) through (A)(6). I believe this to mean all electrodes present, not just a sampling of each type.

That said, I don't believe anyone practices this, or requires this.

But, by the same token, some AHJ's require a CCE to be installed where none is present, using the existing code wording with no amendments. I believe that to be as indefensible a practice as forgetting to utilize several electrodes of the same type. The idea is "Well, the NEC wants us to use a CCE, which is why they changed 250.50. So install one!" But that's not what it says. :?
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
George I disagree. You're saying that if the footing had 10 sections of rebar each 20' long you would be required to bond them all together? I don't think so. Once you've satisfied the 20' of rebar you're done. Same with the water pipe. Once you've satisfied the first 10' piece you call it a day.
 

pierre

Senior Member
Trevor
What you have posted is your opinion. Like all of here, we are all posting our opinion.

I think that this is a valid question, and may need a proposal to tweak it some to make it fit a question like this.

250.50 does say ALL grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(6) that are present...

If there are several different location of footings that are not "bonded together by the usual steel tie wires or other effective means.", maybe we have to bond them together??????? I am not sure if this is what they are looking for.
It is a good question, I would venture to say they are not looking for this - who knows?

This goes back to my earlier question of the different copper water pipes that enter the building for different reasons... are those electrodes.
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
Who knows? I doubt the CMP would have a consensus on this issue. :D

If we forget to use the others of the same type, will it result in fatalities or damage to equipment? I doubt it.
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
My heart is with Trevor but my brain is with Pierre and George. It makes very little sense to redundantly ground the service over and over to multiple electrodes when the code clearly indicates an electrode system only consisting of a couple grounds as being sufficient and acceptable when no other electrodes are present.

Yet, the code does say all that are present must be used. This is enough for an inspector / AHJ to require several separate sections of encased rebar or multiple entries of metal underground water pipe to be used as electrodes.
 

davidv

Member
Not too much of a concern, this a design issue,
If there are specific GE's provided with its parameters properly calculated to perform the function required of a GE, then its sufficient. The next concern is bonding of building steel. No need to consider the footings.

If safety & effectivity conditions (Low grd resis, high touch voltages) are not met as predicted by engineering calculations, caused by small soil area or high soil resitivity such as rock beds(verified during construction), then the use of Ufer may be warranted.
NEC will then be concerned over bonding of different types GEs used.

Care should be made when employing foundations as Ge's. Anodic properties of copper and and moisture can destroy the foundation steels, compromising the whole structure. Coordinate with the structural In-charge. Provide corrosion prevention measures before installations.

Grounding sys electrodes are designed, its not a hit or miss thing


DavidV
ES
 

bphgravity

Senior Member
Location
Florida
David,

What are the calculations used to determine the GES will perform its function properly? How do you know the variables will remain (not degrade) after the installation? Can you describe this corrosive property of copper in more detail? :?:
 

infinity

Moderator
Staff member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Journeyman Electrician
Yet, the code does say all that are present must be used. This is enough for an inspector / AHJ to require several separate sections of encased rebar or multiple entries of metal underground water pipe to be used as electrodes


I still disagree that multiple sections of rebar or multiple water pipes must be bonded together. The requirement is to use all of the available types of electrodes not to bond more than one of the same type together. In my example of the multiple 20' sections of rebar has anyone ever seen in any publication where it says that these sections must be bonded together? I haven't. I have perused through Mike Holts entire Grounding verses Bonding book and the NEC Handbook and can't find a single reference saying that isolated 20' sections of rebar must be bonded together. Or any written reference stating that multiple water pipes must be bonded together. In fact the NEC does not even require me to use the rebar at all. I could install 20' of #4 bare copper at the bottom of the footing to satisfy the "if available" requirement of 250.50. Can anyone provide a written reference that requires this?[/b]
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
I do not intend to discount any author, and do not think it is a conscious effort to evade answering a tough question. Here we come up with questions that are deeper than average, with difficult answers. I'm not surprised that no one has answered this question in print. It's a big enough task to get the basic concepts of grounding and bonding across, without filling in these sorts of gaps.

Let's look at this another way. Look at 680.26(B):
(1) All metallic parts of the pool structure...
(2) All metal forming shells...
(3) All metal fittings...
Would you say that these are different than 250.50? "All grounding electrodes..."

It's not reasonable to say that CMP-5 considers grounding with the same suspicion that we do. Consider this 2005 proposal from a familiar figure:
5-119 Log #1882 NEC-P05
(250-50 Exception (New) )
Final Action: Reject
Submitter: Donald A. Ganiere Ottawa, IL
Recommendation:
Add a new Exception as follows:
Exception: Where an approved insulating section of water pipe is installed within 300 mm (1 ft) of the water pipe?s entrance to the building, the metal under ground water pipe shall not be required to be used as a grounding electrode.
Substantiation:
The use of the metal under ground water pipe creates a parallel path for grounded conductor current. This path causes excessive EMF and also presents an electrical shock hazard to water workers. This proposal allows the designers of the electrical system to eliminate these possible hazards if they so choose. Current code requires that these hazards be created.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
Panel Statement:
The panel maintains its position that all electrodes on the premises "if available" are required to be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. The submitter does not include substantiation that clearly indicates that the proposed change increases electrical safety. If grounding electrodes on the premises are not bonded together, the possibility of differences of potential can exist between those that form the grounding electrode system and those that are isolated from the system. Also when events such as line surges and lightning strikes at the building or premises or in the vicinity of the building or structure, the potential on all conducting elements (grounding electrodes) in the earth should rise at the same potential thus reducing fire and shock hazards in or on the building.

Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Affirmative: 16
 

pierre

Senior Member
Trevor posted
"Can anyone provide a written reference that requires this?"

250.50.

I am not saying that I am 100% positive about this... what I am saying is this. If I were to blank my mind from what my mind already knows about grounding and bonding and read this section as for the first time, it would say to me that all of the electrodes listed in .52(A) that are present, would need to be bonded to whichever electrode I connect my grounding electrode conductor to. Regardless of where in the building these electrodes that are present may be located.

Is this the intent????
Does it make a difference? Take a look at the ROP that George has posted, and the response from the CMP. It would seem from the response that because of potential situations, they want all of the electrodes bonded together.
 

davidv

Member
Dear, Bryan, Pierre;
As you requested :
1. What are the calculations used to determine the GES will perform its function properly?
Answer.
In terms of NEC, the calculation to get a ?Resistance to Ground? with a value less than the ?magical 25ohms? (borrowing Bryan?s term), This condition is the basis if the GES will function properly.
For the calculations I refer to (greenbook)IEEE?s preference in using ? E.B.Dwight?s Equation :
(1) R = (r/2pL)[ln(4L/a)-1] For simple installations & good soils
where: R = resistance of rod in ohms (W), r = soil resistivity in ohm-centimeters (W-cm)
L = length of rod in centimeters (cm), ln = natural logarithm, a = radius of ground rod in centimeters (cm)
= 0.5 x rod diameter (dia) in centimeters (cm). For N, multiple rods, it is considered as parallel resistance. A = land area occupied by ground grid with rod

(2) Rod & Wire Grid Electrodes from Std 80-2000-Eq 53,54, 56 ( industrial , bad soils)
Example : Resistance of ground rod bed R2= (r/(2pi*N*L))*(ln(4L/a)-1+((2kL/A^0.5)*(N^0.5-1)^2
An equivalent equation :
(3) Rg = (r /4)*(pi/A)^0.5 + r / Lt,
Lt = total lenght of (grid conductors + rod lengths)
Min qty. of rods can also be approximated by fault current over the derived fault capacity of rod. Also from IEEEStd 80.

I?m using a 3 Ohm criteria for commercial GES, & less than 1 ohm for Industrial or substation Installations.
All the formulas above is B_l S_t, if the soil is high ?r? and small soil area to drive these rods on.
That?s why soil is the most important part of a GES, for the unlucky guys, rockdrill then bentonite or carbonacious back fill is done before sinking the pipe type electrode. Or direct drill of the pipe electode for deeper depths. For surface soils, chemical treatment is used like common salt for cheap solution.
A US military based we did overseas, we are made to put a 2 meter layer of low resistance soil over a rockbed. Electrodes are separate CEEs , not foundation footing.

For horizontal projects we take soil samples prior to selecting the type of GES and GES area. For initial design, values of 100,000 -10,000 ohm*cm are selected.

For vertical structures usually with basements 100 ft below normal ground, ( where the building sits on the whole lot, GES is a uniform rod & wire 3 to 6 meter grid is driven on the whole area and tested before a lean concrete is cast.( a Ufer!) Then mat foundation steel work will be laid on top of this leveled slab.

2. How do you know the variables will remain (not degrade) after the installation?
Answer.
We don?t know and you won?t either.( in cased of concrete casts.)
That?s why I?m always ready to get down with anybody telling me to finish it, just like ordering hotdogs. Especially those civil works guys, yes, even my own boss. Workmanship,Testing and corrective actions is all we can do. But technically Specs should take care of that. Deeper soils behave the same way ( I observed this during dismantling works copper grounding wires and its crimp connections survived after 50yrs) over the years except for reclaimed areas or ones near water. Galvanised or stainless steel rods are recommended for salty soils,wont be too many coz of low resistivity the soil. Expected life usually considered is 20yrs. Additional surface electrodes are used if possible,Test wells are placed to monitor and also maintain as redundant solutions.


3. Can you describe this corrosive property of copper in more detail?
Answer : ( I?m not chemist so this is not really accurate )
The corrosion process is much like the action happening on the ordinary battery dry cell or car lead acid type, Metals have different ability to lose electrons some easily(high potential ? anodic), some not( low potential-cathodic) In this order (high-Mgnesium, zinc, aluminum, steel, lead, copper, carbon - low ). In an electrolyte ( acids or salt solutions) parent metal atoms are forced to combined with the oxygen atom as they release electrons to form water or hydrogen. ( this force is our voltage, comes from with in the metal atom with respect to another atom. Combine the three is the ingredient of the our battery -anode metal + (magnesium connected to carbon rod)) in salt paste(electrolyte) inside a cathode metal -zinc can(insulated from the paste). Connecting a conductor between + and ? will start the corrosion process . ( for us electrical guys ?to power our lamps?). Over time the paste becomes like rust, in other words the magnesium is corroded. Any combination of high and low metal will result in a battery(corrosion) process. Aluminum&copper, Steel & copper, Mg & steel and the higher will always corrode.

Burrying steel and copper together on a soil with moist and dry portions will start the corrosion process of steel. Soil as well as water or moist acting as both electrolye and conductor. Complete envelopment of concrete & copper material will not trigger the corrosion, after the water from the fresh concrete has been dried up by cement. Unless a crack develops and moisture comes in then its ?disaster in progess?.
Which is not impossibe due to the tendency of buildings settle itself as it weighs.

Thus in a foundation or footing used as ufer ground, it important that the same copper in contact with the steel rebar should not be in contact with the soil as the case of interconnecting to other electrodes outside the footing. And penetrations to the concrete where moisture can enter should be avoided. All necessary inter-electrode bonding and should be done above ground or permanently cast in concrete along with the rebars.

That?s why in structures built near the beaches we don?t use the foundation footing as the main ground electrode, still it is bonded to the rebars but at the columns inside the building, making sure of continuity to rebar below by tying extra jumpers or welding a short piece rebar jumper, if it?s the allowed procedure.
But on other sites whenever theres a ?safe? chance, I tell my boys to put connectors to that ?good spot? and make sure the steel work has continuity

As for my GES design, I consider the use of structural parts like footings for GE,CEE as ?unreliable?, due different sizes of steel and integrity of rebar connections. (?And this is not part of the electrical system? as far as contract is concerned) Thus considered as ?Not Available? , and use the same statement in NEC 250.50 ? Where none of these electrodes are available, one or more of the electrodes ? shall be installed or used. ? going back to the plain o?l rods.

If by chance the building collapses due to some freak of nature or somebody?s sloppy work, we don?t want them pointing to our ?stupid? CEE as the culprit wouln?t we, Never mind the CEE and NEC, This is what me and the AHJ / Electrical Inspector would always drink to at the end of the day.

I only bond below grade metal pipes when they are close to a grounding conductor or electrode. Otherwhise I leave them alone, when opportunity is present bond it (especially pipes riser to roof) to rebars.

I hope my reply is not that long.

DavidV
ES
 

George Stolz

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
Occupation
Service Manager
pierre said:
Is this the intent????
Does it make a difference? Take a look at the ROP that George has posted, and the response from the CMP. It would seem from the response that because of potential situations, they want all of the electrodes bonded together.
To be clear, I am unclear about the CMP's response.
CMP-5 said:
... the potential on all conducting elements (grounding electrodes) in the earth should rise at the same potential thus reducing fire and shock hazards in or on the building.
A grounding electrode is, by definition, in the ground. Given a lightning strike or line surge, it seems to me that the GE's and GEC's that are employed, pose a greater threat of fire or shock to the structure than an isolated GE.

A GEC is not going to raise the potential of the stud it's nailed to; the GE can't even effectively raise the potential of the earth around it. So for them to suggest that an electrode in the earth will make or break a fire hazard is confusing to me.
 

JohnE

Senior Member
Location
Milford, MA
My interpretation is that once you've used on section of 20' rebar or #4 bare, you've satisfied NEC. I can see the merit of the opposite argument, though. I definitely feel a formal interpretation should be requested to clear this up. If the consensus is all sections of rebar to be used, isn't it a logistic problem when rebar is installed in foundation as well, since requirement is for "at or near the bottom of a foundation or footing". I guess we just make sure that all sections are less than 20', and are not tied together. :wink:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top