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

[tryinghard]

My take based on a thorough and literal reading of the code:

3. 250.52(A)(3) CEE: The electrode is only the rebar that is encased in at least 2" of concrete in the footing or foundation. If a rebar is stubbed out of the concrete, that portion of the rebar does not qualify as an electrode. And, this section makes no allowances for the extension of the electrode by something other than a qualified GEC as it does with waterpipes and building steel. Therefore, e rebar stubbed out of the slab is actually being used as a GEC and steel is not allowed for that.

I wonder how you would answer: if a #4 cu conductor is used as per the criteria of 250.52(A)(3), does this qualify as an electrode with, without, or regardless of the rebar?

 

[crossman]

I wonder how you would answer: if a #4 cu conductor is used as per the criteria of 250.52(A)(3), does this qualify as an electrode with, without, or regardless of the rebar?

You're right. I left out that and was only talking about the rebar since it is the issue at hand. I should have been more thorough.

Okay, my reading of 250.52(A)(3) concenring the cooper wire. The portion of the wire that is embedded in the concrete is the electrode. Anything protruding out of the concrete would then be the GEC.

That is just my literal interpretation of the code. Not saying it is right or wrong, just what the code says.

 

[mivey]

the assumption that concrete has a continual moisture level and is in contact with the soil..this then makes for a more consistent low level of resistance to the earth..Would that be a correct statement..

The concrete's moisture retention properties and mineral properties help it make a better connection to the soil than a buried piece of rebar (corrosion being another issue) or a ground rod alone in the same soil conditions.

well I see several problems in the re-bar we are under the assumption that the concrete stays moist and creates a good connection with the earth..

When you use in concrete heating or under concrete (in ground) heating both dry out the concrete and the earth..so is the CEE still a good choice..who makes the call on when it is used and when it is not..

exothermic welding is now able to be perform on a simpler basis and more cost effective..so the connection point would be like a continuous piece of steel so would that make it legal after it protrudes from the slab..

I can picture a possibility where you have dried the soil and concrete out to a point where the CEE has a higher resistance than a ground rod driven in better soil.

I just find it hard to see an actual case where you would be heating the soil up that much, especially in the footer, as that would be a monumental waste of heat. The earth is a huge heatsink.

I would prefer a copper conductor being exothermically welded to the rebar inside the footing, then let the copper protrude from the concrete. I would not like the rebar protrusion and would not allow it if it protruded underground.

 

[tryinghard]

You're right. I left out that and was only talking about the rebar since it is the issue at hand. I should have been more thorough.

Okay, my reading of 250.52(A)(3) concenring the cooper wire. The portion of the wire that is embedded in the concrete is the electrode. Anything protruding out of the concrete would then be the GEC?

Wow, this is the point I've been pressing.

It is the issue at hand for the 'stubbers' because when the electrician installs this it is compliant and the literal sense of a rebar stub is not compliant.

Who cares what it?s called when it is within 2? of protruding this is no different than connecting onto a rebar stub.

 

[iwire]

Wow, this is the point I've been pressing.

I am still not getting it at all.

 

[mayjong]

essentially he's saying this---

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:

i disagree-
anyone care to submit a change request to the NEC???

 

[tryinghard]

I am still not getting it at all.

I maybe able to help you get it with a question: In 250.52(A)(3) besides reinforcing bars, or some type of conductive steel, whats the other method that is a CEE electrode?

 

[iwire]

I maybe able to help you get it with a question: In 250.52(A)(3) besides reinforcing bars, or some type of conductive steel, whats the other method that is a CEE electrode?

A copper conductor ........... so whats the point?


I really am not into playing 20 questions.

 

[tryinghard]

I am still not getting it at all.

What do you mean?

 

[mivey]

A copper conductor ........... so whats the point?


I really am not into playing 20 questions.

You must play along. He is "schooling" you.:smile:

 

[George Stolz]

oh please share with us your winning argument...

Here is a link to page 6 of the discussion. Here is a direct link to one of my posts in that thread, detailing my opinion.

Forgive the rampant formatting tags in the thread, it was a discussion from two forum software versions ago, so some debris is present from the upgrades.

 

[e57]

Thank you for laying it out clearly and concisely.

I certainly agree with all your points.

Of couse to you it would be clear and consise - you're of the same thinking..... To me he is confused and reaching in the code for something that is not there... Did not a wise man say that the code is not a design manual, and if it is not specifically prohibited it is allowed???? For this topic there is not written prohibition = allowed.... Both of you are taking your school of thought on the topic and blinding yourselves to what the code actually says IMO.

 

[e57]

You're right. I left out that and was only talking about the rebar since it is the issue at hand. I should have been more thorough.

Okay, my reading of 250.52(A)(3) concenring the cooper wire. The portion of the wire that is embedded in the concrete is the electrode. Anything protruding out of the concrete would then be the GEC.

That is just my literal interpretation of the code. Not saying it is right or wrong, just what the code says.

OK now you have hit my sore point! I wasn't going to get into this related topic because it is slightly different than the OP.

It it the SAME WIRE! How can the same continuous piece be two things at the same time? And please do find in the code a distinction of a single conductor being two things at the same time. There is only one that I know of - a grounded conductor as a grounding conductor only allowed in a few locations. Other than that - please do find me anywhere else, and especially where in the code that it actually says that this single unspiced conductor as an electrode becomes two pieces by proxy of portion or location - other than your own opinion.

 

[tryinghard]

A copper conductor ........... so whats the point?


I really am not into playing 20 questions.

:roll:

You're right. I left out that and was only talking about the rebar since it is the issue at hand. I should have been more thorough.

Okay, my reading of 250.52(A)(3) concenring the cooper wire. The portion of the wire that is embedded in the concrete is the electrode. Anything protruding out of the concrete would then be the GEC...

You agreed with his previous thoroughness that skipped what a CEE is.
&

Wow, this is the point I've been pressing.

It is the issue at hand for the 'stubbers' because when the electrician installs this it is compliant and the literal sense of a rebar stub is not compliant.

Who cares what it?s called when it is within 2? of protruding this is no different than connecting onto a rebar stub.

&

I am still not getting it at all.

Well I think I?m on topic, maybe I?m not?? I went on to resolve the issues of rebar stubs being compliant or non-compliant CEE?s. I advocate the #4cu for the electrode as the remedy to this rebar problem. You?re pointing to 250.52(A)(3), CEE, and so am I.

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

This is fact in the truest sense of the code we are deciphering, it is also avoidable by using #4 cu as the electrode and stub it long enough to terminate at the service disconnect, no splice at all for the GEC. The AHJ?s may often determine the rebar/#4cu stubs as electrodes and simply allow the GEC to connect at the stub, but if the #4cu is long enough this is a mute point and if its too short splice it (250.64(C)!

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

The end of the first sentence is the electrode to use to avoid the rebar stub issues, as I stated previously install this electrode point to point to avoid any rebar issues.

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.

If you select the #4 electrode it can easily be run long enough to reach its destination, or it can be spliced, NEC does not direct us how to extend rebar stub.

250.62 prohibits using steel as a GEC.

use the #4 cu

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).

unless you use #4cu for both

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

not me, I stub enough to reach the service disconnect. The real violation is the electrician that assumes the rebar is compliant without checking, this same electrician assumes some inspector will check and the installer cares about proper grounding electrodes, this type of electrician just assumes the electrode.




Maybe I?m too far off topic or maybe not, I?ve been concentrating on the fix.

 

[iwire]

You must play along. He is "schooling" you.:smile:

No.

I really can not follow what he is trying to say or the point he is making.

 

[iwire]

How can the same continuous piece be two things at the same time?

Because the code we follow says it is.

It is just that simple, same concept as the code saying a neutral is not a current carrying conductor at the same time we can put a clamp meter on it and have a current reading.

 

[cschmid]

(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.

so what is the other electrical conductive coated steel reinforcing bars..

Do any of you guys work in sugar sand where you can drive 20 ft of rod and the first 8 ft go in buy just pushing the rod through the sand with your hands..this soil dries out..and it is shovel-able in below zero temps around the foundation where the buildings use floor heat of some sort..

 

[tryinghard]

No.

I really can not follow what he is trying to say or the point he is making.

If the #4 cu electrode is used rather than the rebar, the rebar (if non-compliant to 250.52(A)(3)) doesn?t have to be connected to, but it can be if desired.

Example: if I go to a jobsite and it includes a slab with footings that the builder used 10 gauge wire mesh for the slab and 3/8? rebar for the footing. I am not going to tell him to change anything, its his job and it may be compliant to his codes.
I can either install a #4cu CEE electrode and bond to the rebar, or provide a different electrode.

I do not have to make the builder change his rebar, I do not have to bond it because this rebar is not an NEC electrode.

 

[mayjong]

this is ridiculous , and both of these threads are going in circles. both sides are sure they are correct, and both have codes to back it up.
submit it to the NEC for a code change, we'll see what they say...

 

[cschmid]

this is ridiculous , and both of these threads are going in circles. both sides are sure they are correct, and both have codes to back it up.
submit it to the NEC for a code change, we'll see what they say...

So what do you think the point is here mayjong..

If I read all this correctly I believe i have picked it up..You feel free to correct me here..Like I need to give permission (lmao)..

We are talking a CEE Concrete encased Electrode the operative word Electrode..The NEC is stating we bond to steel no where does it say steel is an electrode and please quote the sections as I do not know where it says steel is an electode..So using re-bar is bonding..as steel is not an electrode..

so in order for it to be a CEE it must be classifiable as an electrode..