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

Status
Not open for further replies.
e57

e57

Senior Member
Location
San Francisco, CA
Sorry for the late - in the scheme of this fast moving thread - but I had paint to scrape....

iwire said:
Mark I do not know the intent, never said I did. I have been looking in the ROPs and ROCs trying to learn more but have not learned much.



I do have pretty good grip on English so I can know what the printed words say without having a clue about the intent of the CMP was when they wrote it.
Click to expand...
Same here....



iwire said:
Ah ... I am sticking to the words because that is what the NEC is made of. :smile:
Click to expand...

Sorry I still think you are sticking to the words in a single paragraph to suit the argument and solely your point.

I don't usually make detective story analogies but here goes it:

In 250.52(A)3 You think the Butler did it...
But in 250.70 I have seen that the Butler did not do it - the Maid did!
And finally in the last chapter 250.68(A) we find that the Maid did it with Butlers help...

I have some welding to do, and need to clean up for dinner guests later..... I'll be back to abuse the subject Monday night or so.....
 
C

chevyx92

Senior Member
Location
VA BCH, VA
Minuteman said:
Now, let me ask a question. Can the rebar be a piece less than 20' long, but be a short piece that is connected by tie wire to more than 20' of rebar?
Click to expand...
Short piece? You talking about the "Stub" in question? If so then I would say yes per 250.52(A)(3).
 
C

crossman

Senior Member
Location
Southeast Texas
chevyx92 said:
Yes as outlined in 250.52(A)(3).
Click to expand...

So we have two choices in how to look at this. To be code compliant, the ceiling wire stub-up or the rebar stub-up would have to be either a grounding electrode, or a grounding electrode conductor or bonding jumper.

It is clear that a ceiling wire stub-up or a rebar stub-up does not qualify as a grounding electrode conductor as per 250.62 nor do they qualify as a bonding jumper as per 250.53(C) and the references contained within.

So the only thing they can be is an electrode. And to be an electrode, they must satisfy the six requirements of 250.53(A)(3). We already used one of those six requirements to disqualify the ceiling wire stub-up.

All six requirements carry the same weight and all six criteria must be applied for something to qualify as a portion of the electrode. After all, we disqualified the ceiling wire because it is an extension of a CEE but it didn't meet the size requirement. Shouldn't we disqualify all extensions of the CEE if they don't qualify under the six requirements?
 
C

crossman

Senior Member
Location
Southeast Texas
Minuteman said:
Now, let me ask a question. Can the rebar be a piece less than 20' long, but be a short piece that is connected by tie wire to more than 20' of rebar?
Click to expand...

We already covered this. We could have 20 pieces of rebar with each piece 1 foot long, all tied together with tie wire, and encased in 2" of concrete near the bottom of the footing.
 
Minuteman

Minuteman

Senior Member
Location
The Sooner Nation
crossman said:
We already covered this. We could have 20 pieces of rebar with each piece 1 foot long, all tied together with tie wire, and encased in 2" of concrete near the bottom of the footing.
Click to expand...
Oh... my bad. Please continue. Ground up or ground down? :grin:
 
C

chevyx92

Senior Member
Location
VA BCH, VA
crossman said:
After all, we disqualified the ceiling wire because it is an extension of a CEE but it didn't meet the size requirement. Shouldn't we disqualify all extensions of the CEE if they don't qualify under the six requirements?
Click to expand...

You're reaching here because there's nothing that prohibits a section or an extra piece if you will of rebar to stick up out of the concrete/earth as a means of attachment. IMO. No different that 250.52(A)(1) metal underground water pipe must be in contact with earth for "at least" 10'. Doesn't say a part of it can't emerge from earth(which is where we attach our GEC) so same as a CEE, IMO.
 
C

crossman

Senior Member
Location
Southeast Texas
chevyx92 said:
You're reaching here because there's nothing that prohibits a section or an extra piece if you will of rebar to stick up out of the concrete/earth as a means of attachment.
Click to expand...

Not reaching at all. Is it a GEC? No. Is it an electrode? No. There certainly is a prohibition because the very first requirement says it must be encased in 2" of concrete. You use the 1/2 inch requirement to disqualify ceiling wire but I can't use the 2" encasement requirement to disqualify rebar stub-ups? You are bring inconsistent and less-than-logical. Why is the 1/2" requirement more important than the 2" encasement requirement? Why can you omit the 2" thing, but I can't omit the 1/2" thing?

chevyx92 said:
No different that 250.52(A)(1) metal underground water pipe must be in contact with earth for "at least" 10'. Doesn't say a part of it can't emerge from earth(which is where we attach our GEC) so same as a CEE, IMO.
Click to expand...

First, the waterpipe requirements have no bearing on the literal interpretation of whether a rebar stub-up is legal.

Secondly, the literal wording of the waterpipe section 250.52(A)(1) expressly and definitively spells out that the GEC connection can be made to an extension of the piping that is electrically continuous to the metal underground waterpipe electrode. The aboveground portion of the waterpipe is not the electrode and this is literally written in the section. However, the CMP has made provisions for a GEC connection at some distance from the actual electrode.

It is all black and white, right there in the code book.

Edit to add: The CMP expressly placed wording into the code which allows the GEC connection to be made some distance away from the metal underground waterpipe electrode. They did not put similar wording in for a rebar stub-up.
 
Last edited:
C

chevyx92

Senior Member
Location
VA BCH, VA
crossman said:
Not reaching at all. Is it a GEC? No. Is it an electrode? No. There certainly is a prohibition because the very first requirement says it must be encased in 2" of concrete. You use the 1/2 inch requirement to disqualify ceiling wire but I can't use the 2" encasement requirement to disqualify rebar stub-ups? You are bring inconsistent and less-than-logical. Why is the 1/2" requirement more important than the 2" encasement requirement? Why can you omit the 2" thing, but I can't omit the 1/2" thing?
Click to expand...


Again what says I can't? I never said I was omitting anything. You are assuming here which will get you in trouble. I'm not gonna restate my previous points again. You'll have to read the previous posts. You're missing a lot.
 
C

crossman

Senior Member
Location
Southeast Texas
So you can omit the "2 inch encasement" requirement and you can omit the "must be contained within a foundation or footing that is in direct contact with earth" requirement for your rebar stub-out, but I can't omit the "1/2 inch diameter" requirement for my ceiling wire stub-up?

You can't see that your position defies logic? What code section allows you to ignore the two requirements where I can't ignore just one?

I am not missing a thing. I am reading the 2008 version of the national Electrical Code verbatum.
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
chevyx92 said:
You are assuming here which will get you in trouble.
Click to expand...

crossman is the person assuming the least in this thread.

He is reading what is written, your going by how you feel it should be. :smile:

He has pointed out the hole in your train of thought.
 
C

chevyx92

Senior Member
Location
VA BCH, VA
crossman said:
So you can omit the "2 inch encasement" requirement and you can omit the "must be contained within a foundation or footing that is in direct contact with earth" requirement for your rebar stub-out, but I can't omit the "1/2 inch diameter" requirement for my ceiling wire stub-up?
Click to expand...
When in anything I said did I OMIT anything. You again are ASSUMING i'm omitting things here to keep an arguement going. I understand what a CEE is. Again what says you can't do what is being done all over the USA and being past everyday? Please tell me and tell all the inspectors in the world they are wrong and all are interpretting it wrong. Code doesn't prohibit a stub!
 
C

crossman

Senior Member
Location
Southeast Texas
Chevy, all I am debating is what the Code literally says.

I have already expressed to you that I have no problem with a rebar stub-up. You are correct, it is being done all over the US of A.

But just because thousands of folks do it like that doesn't mean that those installations are complying with the literal wording contained in the Code.

No, those inspectors and ECs are making practical interpretations to facilitate the installation of the CEE. That is okay. I have no beef with that.

But this thread isn't about current practice. it isn't about safety. it isn't about the CMP's intent. It isn't about anyone's interpretation. It is about "what does the code say literally"?

Again, there are several philosophical ways to view any code issue:

1. What is ultimately correct for the safety of the public?

2. What was the intent of the CMP?

3. How does the AHJ in your area interpret this.

4. What does the literal wording of the code mean?

In this thread, the OP is speaking of ONLY #4 above. There is no push to make anyone do anything different. There is no agenda to outlaw rebar stub-ups. I don't particularly care one way or another. I don't think Iwire has any major beef either.

But debates like this happen all the time and are valuable. Discussions like this expose loopholes and problems with the code text. Discussions like this may result in changes which result in a more concise and to-the-point code language in the next cycle.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with picking apart the code based on what it literally says. No one should get upset about this discussion. By all means continue installing CEEs however your AHJ allows. Just be aware that some people enjoy going through the NEC with a fine tooth comb and with logic to find problems and issues which are confusing, inconsistent, or just not being enforced verbatum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top