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

[tryinghard]

And with that logic, a ceiling wire extension from the 20 feet of rebar would be prefectly acceptable. What section would prevent the use of the ceiling wire stubbed up?

The ceiling wire is not listed as acceptable in 250.52(A)(3), literally :grin:

 

[crossman]

The ceiling wire is not listed as acceptable in 250.52(A)(3)

Neither is an un-encased rebar stub-up.

If you can ignore 2 out of the 6 requirements to say a rebar stub-up is literally allowed by the code, then I can ignore 1 out of 6 and say that a ceiling wire extension from a CEE is okay by code also.

 

[e57]

OK the guests are yet to arrive, and I need drill bits that will make it through stainless without burning to drill a piece before I weld it - so I have a little time...

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

In this thread, the OP is speaking of ONLY #4 above. 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.

Your point is that the literal wording in your (and Bob's and few others) view of its intent by way of what you interpret those words to mean. You must understand by now that there are many sentences in the world that can be taken to mean different things to different people - by the way they interpret those words - right?

If you take this code 250.52(A)3 and only see those words and what you think they mean you have a pretty narrow and limited focus IMO. Please do take a look at the REST of 250.52.... None of them say anything about where to connect to them - or if any portion can be exposed...

• Water lines says where you can not connect in a vague manner (5' past the entrance to the building - nothing about that portion being exposed above ground) but allows an exception for supervised industrial buildings. You could very easily make the GEC connection underground. If you take your arguement on 250.68 that the CMP intended to make all CEE connections where encased - the same must be said of water pipes - as it is a buried grounding electrode, and in that thinking that it MUST be connected to where buried... FYI my own GEC is connected to the furthest most point of my water system as was allowed when my service was installed... (right next to the service...)
• Metal frame of the building - nothing anywhere about where to connect to that - or if the connection need be accessible, or be on the exposed portion of it.
• The CEE in question - is the same.....
• Ground ring also the same...
• Rod and pipe - we all know very well can be stubbed up, and the connection be exposed and made on the exposed portion - BUT it does not say it here in 250.52(A)....:roll: It says that in 250.68(A) and the exception to 250.68(A) allows it to be buried or encased....
• Plates the same as above
• Other buried crapola and such - likewise makes no mention of whether or not it can be exposed for any portion - or where to connect to it...

 

[e57]

A little more time...

~~~all I am debating is what the Code literally says.~~~.

If you are sticking to 250.52 as describing the installation and connection to any electrode - you need to turn a few pages.... 250.52(A) only describes the 'permited electrodes' (as opposed to non-permited in B) - not it's installtion of (which is not covered 250.53 ), or connection to - covered by 250.68 + 70

 

[mivey]

All right. I see 250.68 and 250.70 being repeatedly thrown in. Can someone please explain to me how they are the smoking gun the stubbers have been looking for?

 

[crossman]

Please do take a look at the REST of 250.52.... None of them say anything about where to connect to them - or if any portion can be exposed...

The NEC explicitly designates that the GEC connection to the metal underground waterpipe electrode can be away from the actual electrode, and gives a maximum distance from the electrode. where the connection can be made.

The NEC explicitly designates that the entire building steel structure is the electrode. So the GEC can connect anywhere to it.

The NEC explicitly designates that the entire rod or pipe electrode is the electrode. So the GEC can connect anywhere to it.

As for the CEE, no explicit allowance for a GEC connection away from the electrode is given as it is for the other electrodes which allow it. So your argument of comparing the CEE to other electrodes actually supports the "stub-up is a violation" view.

 

[crossman]

All right. I see 250.68 and 250.70 being repeatedly thrown in. Can someone please explain to me how they are the smoking gun the stubbers have been looking for?

What they are saying is that the GEC connection has to be accessible. So if the GEC connection can be be accessible, then it is okay for the rebar ito be stubbed out of the slab... but for some reason in their view, the exception which applies to CEEs and other buried electrodes somehow has no bearing on the issue.

 

[mivey]

What they are saying is that the GEC connection has to be accessible. So if the GEC connection can be be accessible, then it is okay for the rebar ito be stubbed out of the slab... but for some reason in their view, the exception which applies to CEEs and other buried electrodes somehow has no bearing on the issue.

Makes perfect sense if you can ignore parts of the code at will.:grin:

 

[e57]

All right. I see 250.68 and 250.70 being repeatedly thrown in. Can someone please explain to me how they are the smoking gun the stubbers have been looking for?

Unlike the smoking guns of recent memory it exists - and not too hard to look for if you look past/outside the code describing an electrode, an look in the ones describing the installation of, and connection to the electrode.

 

[e57]

Makes perfect sense if you can ignore parts of the code at will.:grin:

Yes - exactly - if ignore the parts describing the installation of, and the connection to the electrode and only focus on the paragraph describing the electrode itself - and not in any context to any other electrode - you have essentially ignored the code(s) neccesary to complete an instalation - as Bob and Crossman have....

 

[e57]

What they are saying is that the GEC connection has to be accessible. So if the GEC connection can be be accessible, then it is okay for the rebar ito be stubbed out of the slab... but for some reason in their view, the exception which applies to CEEs and other buried electrodes somehow has no bearing on the issue.

One word - DUH! :roll: :roll: :roll: Sorry for the short response but really now - after ten pages.....

 

[e57]

The NEC explicitly designates that the GEC connection to the metal underground waterpipe electrode can be away from the actual electrode, and gives a maximum distance from the electrode. where the connection can be made.

250.52 explictilty designates WHAT??? ("Can BE") Yet makes no distinction of that connection being above or below ground. (Interior does not mean outside of the earth - just interior to the building... :wink: ) And how exactly did these words:

Interior metal water piping located more than 1.52 m (5 ft) from the point of entrance to the building shall not be used as a part of the grounding electrode system or as a conductor to interconnect electrodes that are part of the grounding electrode system.

Become 'away from the electrode' - when it still IS the electrode.

The NEC explicitly designates that the entire building steel structure is the electrode. So the GEC can connect anywhere to it.

There is no guidance what so ever in 250.52.... I have no idea where you get that from?????

The NEC explicitly designates that the entire rod or pipe electrode is the electrode. So the GEC can connect anywhere to it.

When you use the words "explicitly designates" - I do not see that - 250.52(A)5 has nothing to this effect - much like in the way it's yonger brother does not explicitly designate any portion of a CEE to be, or not be an electrode, or connected to - dude -(deleted comment about your mental state being altered - replaced with the word - Confused) Come on now - where is that!?!?!?

As for the CEE, no explicit allowance for a GEC connection away from the electrode is given as it is for the other electrodes which allow it. So your argument of comparing the CEE to other electrodes actually supports the "stub-up is a violation" view.

No - As for the CEE, no explicit prohibition for a GEC connection away from the electrode is given as it is for the other electrodes which allow it. (like water pipes) So your argument of comparing the CEE to other electrodes actually supports the "stub-up" view.

 

[cschmid]

OH my word 20 pages since friday (just estimating) this is going to take a few minutes to get caught up on..

 

[mivey]

OH my word 20 pages since friday (just estimating) this is going to take a few minutes to get caught up on..

200 post @ 45 second average...see you back at lunch.:grin:

 

[cschmid]

200 post @ 45 second average...see you back at lunch.:grin:

LMAO yep and I will have to write my self up for to much personal puter time..

 

[tryinghard]

Neither is an un-encased rebar stub-up.

If you can ignore 2 out of the 6 requirements to say a rebar stub-up is literally allowed by the code, then I can ignore 1 out of 6 and say that a ceiling wire extension from a CEE is okay by code also.

The rebar is absolutely listed and there is no additional connection or splice, this portion that rises up is simply unaddressed only because it is not enveloped in 2" of concrete and at or near the bottom. The actual electrode can be in compliance while the portion that enables an accessible GEC connection is stubbed up, the same as a 10? driven rod 8? in ground.

There is nothing being ignored at all except by the NEC, the NEC just doesn?t dialog about the portion that rises up and out of the concrete. This rebar electrode CEE can be understood as one continuous bar that stubs up out of concrete as long as it also has 20? at or near the bottom in 2? of concrete. The stub does not affect the function and purpose of the electrode (although I would not use it)

Your suggested item is not listed at all.

 

[crossman]

I hope this will be my last post in this thread. I?ll try to sum up all my thoughts here. I have been trying to be completely objective and ascertain what the code literally says. Of course it may contain my personal bias and interpretation of the code. However, I have no motives or reason for leaning one way or the other. Rebar stub-ups are fine with me. This is purely a mental exercise to fathom, in my mind, exactly what the code says. You are welcome to believe anything you want. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read this.

First, 250.70 says that ?the grounding conductor or bonding conductor must be connected to the grounding electrode?? and then gives the methods in which it may be connected. The point is, a GEC or bonding conductor must be attached to the electrode.

Now, 250.52 contains descriptions of the various types of electrodes. These descriptions impact the permitted locations where a GEC or bonding conductor may be attached.

250.52(A)(1): This is the description of the waterpipe electrode.

1. A metal underground waterpipe
2. In direct contact with earth for at least 10 feet
3. Electrically continuous to the connection of the GEC/Bonding conductor
4. No grounding system connections can be made more than 5 feet from the point of entrance into the building.

So the actual electrode is the underground portion of the waterpipe. The GEC can be connected directly to the underground electrode. But the code also allows the GEC to be attached away from the electrode by stipulation #3 above, as long as it is within 5 feet of the entrance into the building, stipulation #4. This could certainly be above ground outside or inside the building.

There is a touch of confusion correlating 250.70 with the metal underground waterpipe. However, the waterpipe language above eases the restriction in 250.70 by stating that the GEC connection can be on any part of the waterpipe as long as it is electrically continuous and within 5 feet of the entrance to the building.


250.52(A)(2): This is a description of the building steel electrode.

1. The metal frame of the building that is connected to earth as detailed in this section.

So the entire steel frame is the electrode. Therefore, a GEC connection can be made to any point on the building steel. No issue with 250.70 here. Make the connection to the steel wherever is convenient.


250.52(A)(4): This is a description of a rod or pipe electrode.

1. Shall be at least 8 feet in length
2. If of pipe, shall not be less than 3/4"
3. If a rod, shall not be less than 5/8? diameter, if listed, can be 1/2?

So the entire pipe or rod if the electrode and the GEC connection can be made anywhere on the electrode. No issues with 250.70 here. The entire pipe or rod is the electrode, not just the buried portion. Sure, 250.53 talks about how much must be buried, but that does not change the fact that 250.52 says the entire pipe or rod is the electrode. So, connect to the rod or pipe wherever you want to.


Now we come to 250.52(A)(3). 250.70 says the connection must be made to the electrode. So what is a rebar electrode by 250.52(A)(3)?

Well, the code says it is rebar encased in concrete. Period. (We?ve already gone over the 6 requirements. No need for that here. The relevant thing is that the rebar must be encased.) 250.70 says the GEC must be connected to the electrode, therefore the GEC connection must be made in the concrete.

A rebar stub-up does not meet the requirements for a CEE. So the GEC cannot be attached to the stub. It must be attached to the concrete-encased electrode. This section gives no provisions for a GEC connection away from the electrode as the waterpipe language does. This section says that the electrode must be encased in concrete. And 250.70 says the GEC must be connected to the electrode. And this can only happen by a connection in the concrete.

 

[tryinghard]

I hope this will be my last post in this thread. I?ll try to sum up all my thoughts here. I have been trying to be completely objective and ascertain what the code literally says. Of course it may contain my personal bias and interpretation of the code. However, I have no motives or reason for leaning one way or the other. Rebar stub-ups are fine with me. This is purely a mental exercise to fathom, in my mind, exactly what the code says. You are welcome to believe anything you want. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the time to read this?

Crossman,

I think you?ve done a thorough analyze of the rebar CEE stub!

I also agree with you in the literal sense, yet I believe the rebar?s application is not defined well enough and because of this I simply avoid it and use the #4 cu. I believe 250.52(A)(3) is debatable either way until it is refined.

Thank for your energy!

 

[cschmid]

crossman..I believe you have summed it up..except for where its permissible to connect to a convince location..would the stub out be a convenient location..other wise your interpretation is correct..

 

[crossman]

Gentlemen, it has been a very enjoyable thread. Thanks to Iwire for starting it and thanks to e57, tryinghard, and cshmid for the lively debate. Exercising the mental faculties helps keep us young!

And, as you gentlemen were kind enough to say that you can see Iwire's and my side of it, I can also see your side of it too. Good points made by both sides.

I'm looking forward to more of the same from y'all concerning other topics here in the future!

:smile: :smile: :smile: