2 ground rods?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bill@usps06492

Member
Location
Connecticut
If you bond your service to a copper water line at the meter, and drive an 8ft ground rod outside, and bond to that as well, are you required to drive another 8ft ground rod as well, and bond that too? In CT many towns make this a requirement. In art 250 where would I find this?
Bill
 
250.52

250.52

bill@usps06492 said:
If you bond your service to a copper water line at the meter, and drive an 8ft ground rod outside, and bond to that as well, are you required to drive another 8ft ground rod as well, and bond that too? In CT many towns make this a requirement. In art 250 where would I find this?
Bill
Click to expand...

Yes, Article 250.52 is where it is covered by the NEC, 2005
 
250.56 is where you find the requirement for the second rod...unless you can prove that the first one has a resistance to earth of 25 ohms or less. 250.53(D)(2) tells you that if a dirven rod is use as the required supplement to the metal undergound water pipe, that the rod must meet the requirements found in 250.56.
Don
 
I need to start...

I need to start...

1793 said:
Yes, Article 250.52 is where it is covered by the NEC, 2005
Click to expand...

I need to start looking closer into the Article when I make a post. I was thinking that I was making a blanket statement of where to start looking. I think I should have said Part III Article 250.5?
 
Is this for service upgrades? A new building would likely have a CEE therefore the ground rods aren't needed.
 
To me this should be a "no brainer".
Job permit is issued for a new building. A flag is raised, requiring the builder to hire a licensed electrician to install the CEE. During the footing inspection they inspect the footing and the CEE.
DONE


I do not see the complexity. In a few short jobs all parties related to this inspection will become accostumed to it and life moves on.
 
Jurisdictions around here started requiring CCEs during the '96 NEC cycle. It didn't take very long at all before everybody was on board. Very rare to see one missed these days.
 
I believe the reason it is not done in most areas is twofold. The first being that most people I talk to think that the CEE is not a requirement but a choice. It is equated with 20 foot ( same footage as the rebar) of #4 in the footing rather than the ground rods.
The second reason may be that most builders can't coordinate well enough on the timing of the footing and they forget about it.

The house that I will be working on soon I had to call the builder 4 times to make sure he didn't forget me with the footing--- I got there in time but found that most electricians here have never done one.
 
In Calif. we have to prove our resistance for rod electrodes on school projects usually the average is 8 ohms +/- 60% and that is with 2 ?? x 10? cu rods.

I have not tested a concrete encased electrode (ufer) but I cannot imagine these having any reading more than 5 ohms, or at least always a better result than a rod on the same site or a metal water pipe for that matter.

If random testing results were submitted I believe the ?powers-that-be? would adopt the required use of CCE?s as the preferred method over ALL types of electrodes.

My point is, IMO, there is no better electrode then the CCE and in the light of why we even have an electrode (250-4(A)(1)) the use of a metal underground water pipe should be eliminated as a choice, it?s still going to be bonded 250-104.
 
Pierre C Belarge said:
To me this should be a "no brainer".
Job permit is issued for a new building. A flag is raised, requiring the builder to hire a licensed electrician to install the CEE. During the footing inspection they inspect the footing and the CEE.
DONE


I do not see the complexity. In a few short jobs all parties related to this inspection will become accostumed to it and life moves on.
Click to expand...

Here, the green sticker for the slab is placed on the CEE. No sticker, no framing.
 
In my jurisdiction, the CEE has been an issue for 2 years. Most of the contractors will place the electrode once they understand it. Alot of slab-on-grade homes that don't require reinforcing bar, but still use the "ufer". Because my area does not have a licencing program for electricians, the concrete company is the ones placing the electrode. Biggest problem to date has been making sure the proper clamp is used so it is listed for rebar. About 1/2 of jobs still use double ground rod system because no rebar in footings.
 
I am assuming that most if not all construction jobs today have a footing/foundation inspection. If these inspections were to fail due to not having a CEE, I am sure that the construction personnel involved in those projects will not let a project be slowed because of this in the future, especially when they learn of the relatively insignificant cost of the CEE in relation to the total cost of the project.
As far as electricians will realize, is how much better the CEE is as an electrode compared to the rods and generally how much easier it will be to install as compared to rods.
 
yeah

yeah

Just throw in 2 and call it a day as my foreman would say.......I asked well what if that one ground rod tested at 25 ohms..he looked at me and asked do you have 7000 bucks for a tester...and I said ahhhh yeah throw in 2 and call it a day sounds like code to me :grin:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top