My Argument with Iwire

[George Stolz]

Hey, Bob -

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 think we'd both say they're wrong.

 

[charlie b]

I'd say they were right. Or was I wrong in believing that your intent was to start an argument? I am prepared to disagree with anyone on any topic they choose, just to get a good discussion going. :grin:

 

[iwire]

I am lost but thats OK.

For the sake of argument I will say the sky is green and the grass is blue. :grin:

 

[roger]

I say they are right. I will tie a piece of rebar to the footer rebar and stub it up to attach a GEC or jumper too.


Roger

 

[SEO]

Interesting 4 mods hashing out an issue. I'm with Charlie:grin:

 

[Cavie]

I say they are right. I will tie a piece of rebar to the footer rebar and stub it up to attach a GEC or jumper too.


Roger

This is what is required in Florida.

 

[roger]

This is what is required in Florida.

Cavie, just out of curiosity, is it allowed to use listed for the purpose ground clamps and connect a copper conductor directly to the footer rebar?

We do that at times but probably 75% of the time we find the copper is stolen when we go back

Roger

 

[Cavie]

Cavie, just out of curiosity, is it allowed to use listed for the purpose ground clamps and connect a copper conductor directly to the footer rebar?

We do that at times but probably 75% of the time we find the copper is stolen when we go back

Roger

Yes, very much accepted to use approved ground clamps just as with the pool steel grounding, but as you stated that method will result in stollen wire. Best to turn up the footer steel, paint it green and make the wire connection at an accessible location.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Yes, very much accepted to use approved ground clamps just as with the pool steel grounding, but as you stated that method will result in stollen wire. Best to turn up the footer steel, paint it green and make the wire connection at an accessible location.

Paint it green---:-? . Then connect to it??? or are you joking.

 

[e57]

You know.... I too had the same debate with Bob. And the posted panel comment is contradictory to itself - don't you say....

Originally Posted by Proposal 5-157
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.

Bob's tread about turned up/stubbed bars shouldn't be allowed for connection is turned on ear by this statement, but so is the arguement that connections can only be made to the "electrode" proper.... I don't think anything was solved here. I assume the panel also had a simular debate and compromised in the written statement....

 

[Cavie]

Paint it green---:-? . Then connect to it??? or are you joking.

No, not jocking. After they are made to come back and remove the paint where the clamp goes, they learn not to paint the whole rod. The paint is required so the block masons will not fill that void with concrete. After they come back 2 or 3 times to chip out the concrete, the superintendant seems to understand the proper procedure. In the frame wall, the paint prevents the carpenders from cutting the rod off when they think it is in thier way.

 

[George Stolz]

And the posted panel comment is contradictory to itself - don't you say....

Exactly. .......

 

[brian john]

I am lost but thats OK.

For the sake of argument I will say the sky is green and the grass is blue. :grin:

I have seen that but it was during the late 60's, not sure why??????

 

[chris kennedy]

I find this statement poorly worded also. What about the 2" encasement requirement?

Originally Posted by Proposal 5-157
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.

 

[brian john]

Is this a disagreement over 2" and how long the rebar in the earth needs to be? If so while a code issue it seems minor in the whole scheme of the NEC and some of the issues that exist there.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Is this a disagreement over 2" and how long the rebar in the earth needs to be? If so while a code issue it seems minor in the whole scheme of the NEC and some of the issues that exist there.

I think this is an argument over whether the 2" of rebar sticking out is an electrode or a GEC. If it is a gec than a clamp would not be a suitable connection to the rebar. If it is in the concrete then the clamp would be fine.

I think that was the argument.

 

[George Stolz]

Dennis is right, that was the argument.

 

[iwire]

Let me state my view seeing as my 'name' is in the thread title. I will try to be short.

The NEC describes a CCC as either 20' or more of rebar or 4 AWG ENCASED in at least 2" of concrete.

Therefore any rebar that is not encased in 2" of concrete is not an electrode it is just steel rebar.

When a stub of rebar is left sticking out of the slab as a connection point we are using that steel rebar as a GEC or a bonding jumper. There is no permission in the NEC to use steel for either of these.

I do not think that the steel will add detrimental amounts of impedance but I can very easily believe it will rust out long before the building reaches the end of its lifespan.

To me one of the great things about a CCC is that it could be 'permanent' if say a 4 AWG is run directly from the panel and all the way into the footing pour, the copper will not give out before the building does.

It has been my experience that many times in older buildings the connections to ground rods and water pipes become compromised for reasons ranging from remodelers who have no clue to corrosion at the terminations.

JMHO.

Bob

 

[George Stolz]

And bear in mind, I wasn't trying to call you out - my intention in starting the thread was to point out that we had an opportunity to see whose view matched the CMP's view, and they skid right down the center of the road (IMO) and didn't help any of us, really.

Edit to add: One thing about it, the proposal will give all of us a chance to weigh in on the comments stage and see if we can't get better resolution on the issue.

 

[iwire]

It's all good :smile: ........ well no the CMPs comments are not good, I swear they whipped that one out with little to no thought at all.

In my first post when I said I was lost I was talking about the CMP comment, it makes no sense at all.