#4 CU Required to Ground Rod

[Dennis Alwon]

The fact is we never protect the #6 going to a rod and we have never had an issue with it. It will take a good amount of abuse to mess up a #6 bare copper. Usually there are telephone and cable wires there also- if someone uses a weed eater they will only do it once after having to repair their phone and cable

 

[Canton]

There is a difference between #6 and #4 conductors as far a protection. Look at 250.64(B)

Does not matter what size. Smaller then #6 needs protection, #6 and larger no protection....unless exposed to Physical Damage. If its exposed to physical damage it don't matter what size it is, and needs protection. Read 250.64(B) again closely.:thumbsup:

 

[Dennis Alwon]

Even if exposed to physical damage, a larger size will do nothing. It then must be protected by an approved raceway or other means.

The entire problem is with the term subject to damage-- what the heck does that mean? One inspector says if it is exposed then it is subject to damage, another says if it is in a driveway then it is subject to damage-- really please let me know what subject to damage really means because I have never seen a grounding electrode conductor fastened to the side of a building that was damaged

 

[Canton]

The entire problem is with the term subject to damage-- what the heck does that mean? One inspector says if it is exposed then it is subject to damage, another says if it is in a driveway then it is subject to damage-- really please let me know what subject to damage really means because I have never seen a grounding electrode conductor fastened to the side of a building that was damaged

Totally agree, I have hit mine countless times with the weedwacker. I think it just cleans off the tarnish and discoloration:huh:

 

[GoldDigger]

... I have never seen a grounding electrode conductor fastened to the side of a building that was damaged

You mean, I assume, that you have never seen a damaged conductor attached to the side of an undamaged building.

Anything that would damage the conductor would likely also damage the building, and the amount of protection added by PVC or EMT would probably not be enough to count on under those circumstances.

I have seen some pretty badly damaged poles protecting meters or other equipment wall that was wall mounted next to commercial driveways.

 

[donselec]

Actually #6cu would work for that too.

No, Table 250.66 for 4/0 AL is #4 copper ground.

 

[texie]

No, Table 250.66 for 4/0 AL is #4 copper ground.

I think Curt was referring to the EGC size for your 200 amp feeder to the house. Since this is a feeder fed by a 200 amp breaker you use Table 250.122 for this. 250.66 does not apply here.

 

[donselec]

I think Curt was referring to the EGC size for your 200 amp feeder to the house. Since this is a feeder fed by a 200 amp breaker you use Table 250.122 for this. 250.66 does not apply here.

Yes I think you're right, I just figured with a 200A service you'd use 250.66. I stand corrected. (you learn something new every day).

 

[infinity]

Even if exposed to physical damage, a larger size will do nothing. It then must be protected by an approved raceway or other means.

I'm trying to figure out what the actual wording of the requirement means. Sounds like they're saying a #4 or larger copper conductor is inherently protected by the conductor size itself and no further protection is required. A #6 subject to physical damage requires further protection. All of the wording after the bold part below pertains only to #6 and smaller GEC's. Can someone explain this?

250.64(B) Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage.
Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its en-
closure shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it
is carried. Grounding electrode conductors shall be permit-
ted to be installed on or through framing members. A 4
AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode
conductor shall be protected if exposed to physical damage.


A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from
exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run
along the surface of the building construction without metal
covering or protection if it is securely fastened to the con-
struction; otherwise, it shall be protected in rigid metal
conduit (RMC), intermediate metal conduit (IMC), rigid
polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting
resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic tubing (EMT), or
cable armor. Grounding electrode conductors smaller than 6
AWG shall be protected in RMC, IMC, PVC, RTRC, EMT,
or cable armor.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

I'm trying to figure out what the actual wording of the requirement means. Sounds like they're saying a #4 or larger copper conductor is inherently protected by the conductor size itself and no further protection is required. A #6 subject to physical damage requires further protection. All of the wording after the bold part below pertains only to #6 and smaller GEC's. Can someone explain this?

I have never been able to understand what that section states

 

[pjholguin]

This has been a point of contention, since I was an apprentice(1980). The way it's worded if a #4 or larger is used it must be protected; however, if a #6 is used it does not need to protected. In less it's subjected to physical damage. This is one of Those "you said what?" :happysad:

I'm trying to figure out what the actual wording of the requirement means. Sounds like they're saying a #4 or larger copper conductor is inherently protected by the conductor size itself and no further protection is required. A #6 subject to physical damage requires further protection. All of the wording after the bold part below pertains only to #6 and smaller GEC's. Can someone explain this?

 

[infinity]

If the #4 required protection when subject to physical damage then it should tell us how to protect it. Or it should say something like:


A 4 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode
conductor shall be considered adequate for protection if exposed to physical damage.

 

[kwired]

I'm trying to figure out what the actual wording of the requirement means. Sounds like they're saying a #4 or larger copper conductor is inherently protected by the conductor size itself and no further protection is required. A #6 subject to physical damage requires further protection. All of the wording after the bold part below pertains only to #6 and smaller GEC's. Can someone explain this?

250.64(B) Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage.
Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its en-
closure shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it
is carried. Grounding electrode conductors shall be permit- please note it shall be securely fastened
ted to be installed on or through framing members. A 4
AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode
conductor shall be protected if exposed to physical damage. please note it shall be protected from physical damage




A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from
exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run
along the surface of the building construction without metal please note is shall be securely fastened
covering or protection if it is securely fastened to the con-
struction; otherwise, it shall be protected in rigid metal
conduit (RMC), intermediate metal conduit (IMC), rigid if it is not securely fastened then it must be installed in mentioned
polyvinyl chloride conduit (PVC), reinforced thermosetting methods and be securely fastened per above wording.
resin conduit (RTRC), electrical metallic tubing (EMT), or
cable armor. Grounding electrode conductors smaller than 6
AWG shall be protected in RMC, IMC, PVC, RTRC, EMT, smaller then 6 AWG is apparently subject to damage no matter
or cable armor. what other conditions may be



Sure looks like it could be rewritten to me to help it be easier to understand. Funny thing is it looks like the only way to protect a conductor from physical damage is via the mentioned raceways, though I really think the intention is more then just those methods. It only requires protection of an exposed conductor which to me means an enclosed conductor must already be protected so if we place it in a surface mounted enclosure of any type besides what is mentioned - is it exposed or not - and would that be a violation since it is not the mentioned acceptable "enclosures"?

WOW, formatting in the editor and formatting after submitting are not always the same - the blue is my commentary and is broken up some from how I tried to submit it.

 

[GoldDigger]

Three situations are covered:
1. Smaller than #6 must always be protected, period.
2. #6 must be protected if subject to physical damage OR if not mounted in the manner specified.
3. Larger than #6 only needs to be protected if subject to damage.
Seems perfectly clear to me except for the way it is written. .

Tapatalk!

 

[kwired]

Three situations are covered:
1. Smaller than #6 must always be protected, period.
2. #6 must be protected if subject to physical damage OR if not mounted in the manner specified.
3. Larger than #6 only needs to be protected if subject to damage.
Seems perfectly clear to me except for the way it is written. .

Tapatalk!

That is kind of always been my understanding, but they sure don't write it that simple.

 

[GoldDigger]

Just apply basic symbolic logic and it all comes out.
:angel:

Tapatalk!

 

[gaelectric]

My experience is Denver inspectors make up stuff as they go along. Easier to just do what they say and go on with life.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

My experience is Denver inspectors make up stuff as they go along. Easier to just do what they say and go on with life.

I think the same can be said for many areas and also some electricians make up some wild stuff also---there are so many old wives tales that it is ridiculous

 

[kwired]

My experience is Denver inspectors make up stuff as they go along. Easier to just do what they say and go on with life.

Going back and changing things costs someone, I wouldn't put up with it, they need to be professionals. If they at least are consistent is one thing but if standards are different every time the same task is encountered, that is not professional at all.