CEE Rebar Stub Out? I don't think so.

[tryinghard]

Rods and CEE are defined differently we already covered that.

This doesn't mean I agree because these are an example of what the NEC does accept and in this light it?s contradictory to the legalistic definition of a rebar CEE!

The NEC is devoid of the definition of limits of exactly where the rebar CEE electrode is located.

I think the 'rebar grounders' should have to paint the exact electrode!

 

[e57]

Mark, bottom line

Is the connection more likely to last longer buried in dirt or encased in a footing?

Now - where/why do you keep coming up with this 'dirt' thing?????? You have taken this derogritory tone about 'stubbers' and you think they all stub out into the dirt?????
(granted the current wording does not diss allow that...)

 

[crossman]

By not implying that the above is in the code - as it is not, or it would have been written in that manner....

I took the first sentence of 250.52(A)(3) and broke it down to numbered points between the commas. And you say those requirements are not in the code. How about you make a list of the requirements for a rebar CEE? Explain to me what the requirements are, for if I am wrong, I need to be corrected.

And that #1 on your list is in direct conflict with 250.68 and somehow in your mind - the accessible portion of the electrode does not comply when the same continuous metal at the other end does.

We already discussed the exception and the reason for its existence.

 

[e57]

This doesn't mean I agree because these are an example of what the NEC does accept and in this light it?s contradictory to the legalistic definition of a rebar CEE!

The NEC is devoid of the definition of limits of exactly where the rebar CEE electrode is located.

I think the 'rebar grounders' should have to paint the exact electrode!

I have to agree here and say that yes - I have seen people 'identify' the 'electrode' at its protrution with paint.... (Green) although that too is not required - or for that matter advisable....

 

[crossman]

You really need to stop using 'yourself' as evidence to the answers here. I love a good debate but need a broader scope of reference for the argument. :roll:

Errr....

The reference to my previous post was a reference to a previous post that contained wording that was pretty much directly quoted from the NEC!

 

[e57]

Quote:
Originally Posted by e57
By not implying that the above is in the code - as it is not, or it would have been written in that manner....

I took the first sentence of 250.52(A)(3) and broke it down to numbered points between the commas. And you say those requirements are not in the code. How about you make a list of the requirements for a rebar CEE? Explain to me what the requirements are, for if I am wrong, I need to be corrected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e57
And that #1 on your list is in direct conflict with 250.68 and somehow in your mind - the accessible portion of the electrode does not comply when the same continuous metal at the other end does.


We already discussed the exception and the reason for its existence.

IMO if the code intended that 'all conditions be met' A~Z it would have written them in that manner as it does in many other instances, and YES #1 on your list is in direct conflict with 250.68A - and I am waiting patiently for a link to the CMP comments to the effect that you refference to the inclusion of a permisible exception as a requirement.

 

[crossman]

Okay. I am going to do this one more time with the EXACT wording of the rebar requirements of the first sentence of the aforementioned section:

2008 NEC 250.52(A)(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode.

An electrode

encased by at least 50mm (2 in.) of concrete,

located horizontally near the bottom, or veritcially,

and within that portion of the foundation or footing that is in direct contact with earth,

consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of one or more

bare or zinc galvanized or otherwise conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods

of not less than 13mm (1/2 in) diameter,

That is exactly what it says, word for word from the NEC. A rebar CEE must comply with that sentence. Within that sentence, I count six requirements. Nowhere does it say that any of the six requirments can be omitted. I see no way to read it in a manner that we can simply ignore any of the six requirements.

Someone explain to me how we can omit some of those requirments without violating what is required for a rebar CEE. What is the logic behind the omission?

 

[paul]

Please correct me if I am mistaken-- I know you will-- If rebar is exposed to the elements or even a crawl space isn't there a good chance that it will rust and the connection to the rebar via the clamp will get compromised?

Stub ups around here are in the garage. Between the 24-hr WA drizzle and the salt air from Puget Sound, I have yet to see one rusted. I'm not buying into that argument.

 

[iwire]

(granted the current wording does not diss allow that...)

Exactly.

Regardless of how you may do may do it, if we say the NEC allows stubs then it also allows the stubs into corrosive soils and of unlimited lenght all spliced with tie wire.

have taken this derogritory tone about 'stubbers'

If my statements about 'stubbers' came across as anything more then just joking around and trying to keep the mood of this thread 'light and friendly' I apologize. :smile:

 

[paul]

FYI, I have always attached the wire to the rebar in the footing, but I still see nothing wrong with 'stubbing'. As for stubbing out into the soil, I have never seen it done. It's always up in the area where the panel is going. The foundation guys don't want to be making any unnecessary holes in their forms.

 

[crossman]

I am waiting patiently for a link to the CMP comments to the effect that you refference to the inclusion of a permisible exception as a requirement.

250.68 is written as clearly and concisely as possible. In general, GEC connections must be accessible. However, with certain types of electrodes, the CMP establishes that the connection must be buried or encased.

You can exchange "must" with "can be" if you want to. That in no way affects what the wording of the first sentence of 250.52(A)(3) says.

 

[iwire]

I have pretty much said all I can here, unless some new ideas get posted.

I will repeat this, I could not have put it any better.

Okay. I am going to do this one more time with the EXACT wording of the rebar requirements of the first sentence of the aforementioned section:

2008 NEC 250.52(A)(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode.

An electrode

encased by at least 50mm (2 in.) of concrete,

located horizontally near the bottom, or veritcially,

and within that portion of the foundation or footing that is in direct contact with earth,

consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of one or more

bare or zinc galvanized or otherwise conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods

of not less than 13mm (1/2 in) diameter,

That is exactly what it says, word for word from the NEC. A rebar CEE must comply with that sentence. Within that sentence, I count six requirements. Nowhere does it say that any of the six requirements can be omitted. I see no way to read it in a manner that we can simply ignore any of the six requirements.

Someone explain to me how we can omit some of those requirements without violating what is required for a rebar CEE. What is the logic behind the omission?

If I can ignore 'encased by at least 50mm (2 in.) of concrete' can I also ignore 'not less than 13mm (1/2 in) diameter' and make the stub out out of 3/8" rebar?

 

[crossman]

FYI, I have always attached the wire to the rebar in the footing, but I still see nothing wrong with 'stubbing'.

Paul, I don't particularly have anything against stubbing up the rebar either. But "my personal opinion" and "what the code literally says" are sometimes two different things.:smile:

If you feel that the 2008 code wording allows a rebar stub-up as part of the electrode, could you post some code sections and logic that support the position?

I'm not being harsh. I just need to be corrected if I am misreading the literal meaning of the way the code is written.

 

[e57]

Okay. I am going to do this one more time with the EXACT wording of the rebar requirements of the first sentence of the aforementioned section:

2008 NEC 250.52(A)(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode.

An electrode

encased by at least 50mm (2 in.) of concrete,

located horizontally near the bottom, or veritcially,

and within that portion of the foundation or footing that is in direct contact with earth,

consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of one or more

bare or zinc galvanized or otherwise conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods

of not less than 13mm (1/2 in) diameter,

That is exactly what it says, word for word from the NEC. A rebar CEE must comply with that sentence. Within that sentence, I count six requirements. Nowhere does it say that any of the six requirments can be omitted. I see no way to read it in a manner that we can simply ignore any of the six requirements.

Someone explain to me how we can omit some of those requirments without violating what is required for a rebar CEE. What is the logic behind the omission?

In the instance of a stubbed rebar you would not be 'omitting' any of the requirements +/or modifying them in any way. The underlined sentence above is both absolute - but contains no inclusive, or exclusive language to say that no portion of the electrode be exposed. If you have 50' and 20' of which qualifies - it can be considered an electrode. Nor does it say anywhere that connection to the electrode be made only in that portion that qualifies in this code or or in 250.68, or 70. And the question Bob has asked about for length of exposure is also - just plain not there... With no guidance from the code on prohibition - it is allowed....

 

[crossman]

If I can ignore 'encased by at least 50mm (2 in.) of concrete' can I also ignore 'not less than 13mm (1/2 in) diameter' and make the stub out out of 3/8" rebar?

Great point!

A stub-up also ignores "and within that portion of the foundation or footing that is in direct contact with earth". So as long as we are ignoring, then why can't we ignore the 20 feet part? Every requirement in that sentence has equal weight.

At this point, I think the stubbers are going to be under the gun to explain why it is okay to ignore some of the six requirements but not others. If we can't get an explanation for that, then I think the literal interpretation of the code will be that stub-ups are a violation.

 

[e57]

250.68 is written as clearly and concisely as possible. In general, GEC connections must be accessible. However, with certain types of electrodes, the CMP establishes that the connection must be buried or encased.

You can exchange "must" with "can be" if you want to. That in no way affects what the wording of the first sentence of 250.52(A)(3) says.

250.68 Grounding Electrode Conductor and Bonding Jumper Connection to Grounding Electrodes.
(A) Accessibility. The connection of a grounding electrode conductor or bonding jumper to a grounding electrode shall be accessible.
Exception: An encased or buried connection to a concrete-encased, driven, or buried grounding electrode shall not be required to be accessible.

Ok - now you're reaching.....
"Shall Be" = 'must'
"Shall not be required" = means just that - it is 'not required' - but in no way means that it 'must not be'...

BTW I'm still waiting for those CMP comments to this effect....

 

[crossman]

In the instance of a stubbed rebar you would not be 'omitting' any of the requirements +/or modifying them in any way. The underlined sentence above is both absolute - but contains no inclusive, or exclusive language to say that no portion of the electrode be exposed. If you have 50' and 20' of which qualifies - it can be considered an electrode.

So by this logic, as long as there is 20 feet of 1/2" rebar encased in concrete that meets all the requirements of the sentence, then we have an electrode. And anything else added to this is also an electrode, but no longer has to meet the six requiremts of the sentence.

By this logic of omitting requirements once we have 20 feet of 1/2 in the foundation, I could use ceiling wire as a stub-up for the GEC connection? If I can't, then why can't I?

edit: typo

 

[e57]

So by this logic, as long as there is 20 feet of 1/2" rebar encased in concrete that meets all the requirements of the sentence, then we have an electrode. And anything else added to this is also an electrode, but no longer has to meet the six requirements of the sentence.

Yep!!!!! But change 'added to' to 'extending from' and we are now in business....

By this logic of omitting requirements once we have 20 feet of 1/2 in the foundation, I could use ceiling wire as a stub-up for the GEC connection? If I can't, then why can't I?

Because 'ceiling wire' is not qualifying as an electrode, or a GEC....

Bringing this graphic back....

 

[e57]

Modified the graphic to reflect Bobs position.... And grade...

 

[chevyx92]

In the instance of a stubbed rebar you would not be 'omitting' any of the requirements +/or modifying them in any way. The underlined sentence above is both absolute - but contains no inclusive, or exclusive language to say that no portion of the electrode be exposed. If you have 50' and 20' of which qualifies - it can be considered an electrode. Nor does it say anywhere that connection to the electrode be made only in that portion that qualifies in this code or or in 250.68, or 70. And the question Bob has asked about for length of exposure is also - just plain not there... With no guidance from the code on prohibition - it is allowed....

I agree with you and thats how I read it as well.