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

Status
Not open for further replies.
acrwc10

acrwc10

Master Code Professional
Location
CA
Occupation
Building inspector
electricmanscott said:
While I agree with Bob on the issue at hand it really doesn't matter unless he divorces his computer and becomes an inspector. We know that's not happening. :D
Click to expand...

If he stays out of CA with this type of thinking , he can be an inspector all he wants. Although inspecting over computer ? you may have something there. "Tele-inspecting." Just remember you heard it here first. Out sourced electrical inspecting. where do you call to schedule an inspection, Bangladesh ? :rolleyes: :cool: :mad:
 
tryinghard

tryinghard

Senior Member
Location
California
wirebender said:
So if you used 20' of 4 AWG copper as the CEE, the stub out wouldn't be considered part of the electrode? It would be the GEC? So, you would have to be sure and leave enough stubbed out to reach the service equipment and pray it is still there when you need it? Good Luck!
Click to expand...

I will continue to call it an electrode even though it does not follow the truest definition in 250.52(A)(3) as being encased in at least 2? of concrete. This line of thinking is the same as a driven 8? rod that is to have its entire length in contact with earth, if a portion of this rod is accessible above ground or in a hand hole it is still referred to as an electrode yet legalistically its not unless its entire length is below ground. Also if I use a ground ring as 250.52(A)(4) I?m not going to connect a GEC below its protrusion of earth, I?m going to run it long enough to reach the ground bus termination, we use these often with free-standing switchgear.

If it is determined by the AHJ to be a GEC near the top of its protrusion so be it, at least an electrician installed the electrode. It really is not a big risk to make it long enough to reach its destination we have many more critical layouts than this. :grin: If you have a change to move the service disconnect just remember to include a GEC splice as per 250.64(C) , if your AHJ requires it.

About eight years ago we had a service disconnect move and the inspector questioned our electrode GEC termination (above concrete accessible in a wall). I pointed out that we were using the #4 as the electrode and he accepted. Maybe others won?t but who cares, it?s only a problem if you need to splice and then you just splice. :)
 
quogueelectric

quogueelectric

Senior Member
Location
new york
iwire said:
I don't know, not as long as the building it serves.

But don't you think that was one of the big reasons for going to CEEs, they will last as long as the structure itself. :cool:
Click to expand...
NO I think that the main reason for going to cees is that concrete is a conductor although a bad conductor when you apply ohms law to it and you have unlimited parallel paths touching ground with a couple of hundred tons holding it into direct contact with earth you have a better ground than a groundrod. It is as simple as that in my opinion. Havent you ever been hit kneeling on concrete??
 
e57

e57

Senior Member
Location
San Francisco, CA
electricmanscott said:
While I agree with Bob on the issue at hand it really doesn't matter unless he divorces his computer and becomes an inspector. We know that's not happening. :D
Click to expand...
After a week of captive entertainment by my step-in-laws - being married to mine doesn't seem like all that bad an idea. (Really I love my wife and her family - it's the other ones that gotta go.)

I see Bob's point - and in the sense of using a conductor as a CEE, or conversely a piece of re-bar or rod, or pipe etc., it is still an 'electrode' - until it changes physical form in some way.

While in the case of water pipes as electrodes (5') - that code is relatively new in the big scheme of things.... '93 I think??? OR... If you had a 10' rod 8' in the ground - is the 2' portion of the rod sticking up a GEC? It is still THE rod that is still the electrode. It hasn't changed in anyway... And the code makes no mention of any distance limitation for conductors as CEE's, or connection to them that I know of. Nor anything about any distance to connect to re-bar either. If the stub is still the same piece that is the 'electrode' then it is still the 'electrode' even if that portion doesn't fit the description....

I know we all love to argue.... But unless the NEC is going to define the connection point to CEE's and the rest of electrodes in the way they did with water pipes, then I think it is a mute point - until we have something to argue about. As it doesn't seem to me that there is any wording about it other than some light wording about the 'protection' of that connection, and accessibility.

from '02 and commentary:
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.
If the exposed portion of an encased, driven, or buried electrode is used for the termination of a grounding electrode conductor, the terminations must be accessible. However, if the connection is buried or encased, terminations are not required to be accessible.~~
Click to expand...

In the '08 those words in blue change to "All mechanical elements used to terminate"

So making a connection to an encased electrode where it would be considered an "electrode" in this arguement is actually a permissive "Exception" to the rule....
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
quogueelectric said:
NO I think that the main reason for going to cees is that concrete is a conductor
Click to expand...

No kidding?

If concreter was not a conductor it would not have made much of an electrode.:roll:
 
iwire

iwire

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Massachusetts
tryinghard said:
. This line of thinking is the same as a driven 8? rod that is to have its entire length in contact with earth, if a portion of this rod is accessible above ground or in a hand hole it is still referred to as an electrode yet legalistically its not unless its entire length is below ground.
Click to expand...

Yes same thing.

An 8' ground is required to be entirely covered with earth or it is not an electrode that qualifies to the NEC.

If you want to leave some ground rod exposed you will have to buy 10' rods.
 
tryinghard

tryinghard

Senior Member
Location
California
I?d like to see the NEC make the #4 the only CEE, and then bond to whatever type conductive item is in the footing or foundation regardless of how they are installed. With this the steel type, installation & application would no longer matter the installation & location would be determined by the electrician. Who knows steel may be fiberglass or some other non-conductive item in our not-to-distant future?

The articles in Chapter 8 that require grounding all specify maximum distance (25? +/-), these are grounded for the same reasons, with these as example distance does seem to matter.
 
ryan_618

ryan_618

Senior Member
Location
Salt Lake City, Utah
So Bob, what if I drive a ten foot ground rod eight feet deep, then conect to the exposed portion of it? Are you saying that it is not an electrode because the electrode is only the part that is in the dirt? It seems like the same logic as your CEE argument...
 
cschmid

cschmid

Senior Member
Location
Northern cold country
iwire said:
For those that do not know CEE is short for Concrete Encased Electrode.

In my opinion it is a NEC violation to stub the rebar out of the foundation for connection to the GEC.

The facts as I see them.

250.52(A)(3) defines what a CEE is. That description requires that the CEE be surrounded by at least 2" of concrete.

Given that definition the rebar that is stubbed out is not a CEE. It is simply a steel conductor attached to the the CEE so in reality the stubbed out section is a GEC.

250.62 prohibits using steel as a GEC.

In my opinion and due to 250.64(A) the only legal way to connect to a rebar CEE is with a copper conductor connected to the rebar in the area defined by 250.52(A)(3).

All you 'stubbers' are in violation of the NEC. :grin:
Click to expand...

250.52 Grounding Electrodes.
(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 (1/2 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. 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.

Ok I follow that..But I do not follow the exposed area of thought..As the connection to the CEE is not in violation according to 250.64 (f)(1) so does that mean having the rebar exsposed makes a convient location..

250.64 Grounding Electrode Conductor Installation.
(B) Securing and Protection Against Physical Damage. Where exposed, a grounding electrode conductor or its enclosure shall be securely fastened to the surface on which it is carried. A 4 AWG or larger copper or aluminum grounding electrode conductor shall be protected where exposed to physical damage. A 6 AWG grounding electrode conductor that is free from exposure to physical damage shall be permitted to be run along the surface of the building construction without metal covering or protection where it is securely fastened to the construction; otherwise, it shall be in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor. Grounding electrode conductors smaller than 6 AWG shall be in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, rigid nonmetallic conduit, electrical metallic tubing, or cable armor.

(F) Installation to Electrode(s). Grounding electrode conductor(s) and bonding jumpers interconnecting grounding electrodes shall be installed in accordance with (1), (2), or (3). The grounding electrode conductor shall be sized for the largest grounding electrode conductor required among all the electrodes connected to it.
(1) The grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted to be run to any convenient grounding electrode available in the grounding electrode system where the other electrode(s), if any, are connected by bonding jumpers per 250.53(C).
 
Last edited:
tryinghard

tryinghard

Senior Member
Location
California
250.52(A)(3) does not say the CEE electrode can be wire tied to equal 20'!

250.52(A)(3) does say a CEE electrode consists of at least 20'.
 
raider1

raider1

Senior Member
Staff member
Location
Logan, Utah
crossman said:
That's strange! My 2005 NEC says you can!
Click to expand...

So does mine.

The last sentence of 250.52(A)(3) states:

"Reinforcing bars shall be permitted to be bonded together by the usual steel tie wires or other effective means."

Chris
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top