CEE connection and extension
- Thread starter Ponchik
- Start date
- Status
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
The grounding electrode conductor has to be continuous from the panel to the grounding electrode.
So another words I can leave the tail end out of the footing and connect the continuous GEC to that.
Now why am I asking my original questions. If that connection (#4 copper GEC to #4 copper CEE conductor) does not have to be irreversible, why does an GEC has to have an irreversible coupling?
I can't see the difference between the two.
PEDRO ESCOVILLA
Senior Member
- Location
- south texas
250.62 (C) 2008 NEC , says the GEC has to continous, in one length or spliced with an irreversable connection.
PEDRO ESCOVILLA
Senior Member
- Location
- south texas
i'm not sure why that is. is that like a "why is the sky blue question":bye:
So one doesn't undo the connection???? I guess some one can undo the connection at the water service. :? so what is the irreversible connection specific for the GEC???
I know that. but my question is about the connection to the #4 that is being used as CEE.
I can't understand why a GEC has to be spliced with irreversible connections yet a connection to CEE wire type can be done with reversible connectors.
I don't see where it can be a reversible connection, i.e. CEE "tail" to GEC. The "tail" is to be part of the GEC.
- Location
- Windsor, CO NEC: 2017
- Occupation
- Service Manager
Don't get Bob and I started on this, you'll have 30 posts tonight. 
I think that officially now, according to the CMPs, the CEE stops at 2" of concrete cover. That is a foot of GEC you have dangling of the concrete. Substantiation to follow in the morning.
I think that officially now, according to the CMPs, the CEE stops at 2" of concrete cover. That is a foot of GEC you have dangling of the concrete. Substantiation to follow in the morning.
You have a #4AWG tail sticking out from the footing and you connect the GEC to it using mechanical connections. That is reversible.
I just don't understand the idea of "irreversible connection" yet it allows you to install a copper plate 1/4" thick and use mechanical bolt and nut. For some reason that is OK but extending GEC with split bolts or other mechanical means is not OK.
I understand what you are saying. What I'm saying is that the Code does not permit such connection. The electrode must be concrete embedded. Whatever is sticking out is the GEC.
Some jurisdictions permit a protuding piece of rebar for the connection. IMO, that's a violation, even if irreversibly connected.
The point is conductor continuity between electrode and system termination. It's easy to recognize the purpose at these locations but not always so in between.
Last edited:
so another words if I am using CEE of the conductor type then it has to be continuous to the panel unless i can do irreversible connection.
Correct IMO. :thumbsup:
But I can't enforce what you are saying without a code section. Technically the tail that is sticking out is an electrode (even though NEC does not have a length limit on it) .
I guess as previously posted by George then the 2" kicks in.
jumper
Senior Member
- Location
- 3 Hr 2 Min from Winged Horses
Don't get Bob and I started on this, you'll have 30 posts tonight.
I think that officially now, according to the CMPs, the CEE stops at 2" of concrete cover. That is a foot of GEC you have dangling of the concrete. Substantiation to follow in the morning.
You looking for this? 2011 ROP. I put the proposed added text in bold.
5-157 Log #3051 NEC-P05 Final Action: Reject
(250.52(A)(3))
_______________________________________________________________
Submitter: Mike Holt, Leesburg, FL
Recommendation: Revise text as follows:
(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode. An electrode encased by at least 50 mm (2 in.)
of concrete, located horizontally near the bottom or vertically, and within that
portion of a concrete foundation or footing that is in direct contact with the
earth, consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of one or more bare or zinc galvanized
or other electrically conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods of not less
than 13 mm (? in.) in diameter, or consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of bare
copper conductor not smaller than 4 AWG. Reinforcing bars shall be permitted
to be bonded together by the usual steel tie wires or other effective means.
Exposed or concealed reinforcing bars that are bonded to reinforcing bars
meeting the criteria of this section shall be considered part of the electrode.
Where multiple concrete-encased electrodes are present at a building or
structure, it shall be permissible to bond only one into the grounding electrode
system.
Substantiation: There is a long standing debate as to whether or not a piece of
rebar (connected to the footing/foundation steel) that pierces the concrete and is
installed inside of a framed wall can be connected to and be used as a concrete
encased electrode. This proposal is intended to clarify this practice is a
permitted one.
Panel Meeting Action: Reject
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.
Number Eligible to Vote: 16
Ballot Results: Affirmative: 16
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
I want to thank the CMP for clearing that up. :slaphead:
Do they actually read these proposals?
petersonra
Senior Member
- Location
- Northern illinois
- Occupation
- engineer
The CEE has to be encased in concrete. A tail sticking out of the concrete is not part of the CEE. The connection of the GEC to the CEE has to be made to the CEE, not to something that is not part of the CEE.
I think this is a stupid rule but it appears to be the rule, and if people are making the GEC/CEE connection to something that is not part of the CEE, they are not following the code as written.
IMO, a connection is a connection, and a tail is not a connection.
OTOH, I think the rule is observed properly if a short segment of wire is connected to the CEE and left out as a tail that can be connected to.
I think this is a stupid rule but it appears to be the rule, and if people are making the GEC/CEE connection to something that is not part of the CEE, they are not following the code as written.
IMO, a connection is a connection, and a tail is not a connection.
OTOH, I think the rule is observed properly if a short segment of wire is connected to the CEE and left out as a tail that can be connected to.
Last edited:
- Location
- New Jersey
- Occupation
- Journeyman Electrician
I agree, and this is why IMO the CMP dropped the ball. They had the proposal right there in front of them and failed to clarify what was already not clearly written.
kwired
Electron manager
- Location
- NE Nebraska
- Occupation
- EC
That tail sticking out is no longer an electrode, even though it is one piece of copper only the portion that is encased in at least 2" of concrete meets the requirements of being an electrode. The remainder of the tail is either a grounding electrode conductor or a bonding jumper.
Other installation conditions determines if it is a grounding electrode conductor or a bonding jumper.
If the CEE is the only grounding electrode available, then that tail is also the GEC, and must be continuous or spliced with irreversible connectors identified for grounding and run to the allowable points on the service, or main disconnecting means for a building supplied by a feeder.
If you have a continuous GEC to a water pipe electrode you can bond this tail to the GEC that runs to the water pipe. In that case the conductor to the CEE is a bonding jumper and not a GEC, and irreversible connectors are not required. You could also connect the bonding jumper from the CEE directly to the water pipe electrode, including the first five feet of metal pipe after it enters a building.
Comments in bold.
What is section that i need to enforce? If the wire type CEE is used it has to be continuous to the panel. unless irreversible splices are made.
- Status