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

[cschmid]

So we have been on this discussion about the semantics of what a proper intrepretation of what a CEE is..or should I say what an Electrode is..and that is why Bob classifies it as illeagal..is that correct..

 

[e57]

So we have been on this discussion about the semantics of what a proper intrepretation of what a CEE is..or should I say what an Electrode is..and that is why Bob classifies it as illeagal..is that correct..

I guess that sums it up..... But is Bob and others of like thinking right or not - that is the question - and contrary to what either side thinks - I THINK the code is so ambiguous about it that short of an interpetation from an official commitee nothing will be resolved untill the code spells it out IMO. Because I, and others do not read it the same way Bob and others do.

 

[iwire]

I THINK the code is so ambiguous about it that short of an interpetation from an official commitee nothing will be resolved untill the code spells it out IMO. Because I, and others do not read it the same way Bob and others do.

I see nothing ambiguous about the NEC definition of a CEE.

Why is it people seem to be getting upset?

I am not an inspector and I am not trying to say anyone does bad work and I am not trying to change how anyone does their job. All I have been pointing out is a wording problem with the current NEC.

 

[iwire]

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.

No kidding.

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.

Again, No kidding :smile:

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.

Again part II, no kidding.

What does any of that have to do with this thread?

 

[crossman]

The current wording of 250.52(A)(3) is not ambiguous as Bob has said. However, proper enforcing of the section is rather ambiguous.

There is no doubt that an exact literal interpretation of 250.52(A)(3) in conjunction with 250.62 makes the practice of stubbing a rebar up out of the slab for a GEC connection is a violation.

We can argue all day long what it should say, we can argue all day long what theoretcially should be done to provide the best connection to earth, we can argue all day long about how the current wording should be enforced, but again, a rebar stub-up used for a GEC connection is a literal violation of the code.

 

[crossman]

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.

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.

here... I found a Code Section for you!

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

An electrode encased by at least 2 inches 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 20 feet of bare copper conductor not smaller than #4 AWG. (I omitted the rebar wording for clarity)

It is okay that we disagree on this. The way I read the above, only the portion of the wire that is actually encased in concrete is the electrode. Anything after that is a GEC.

Just for the sake of argument, let's go with your thought that the entire length of #4 cu is the electrode. Say we have 38 feet of #4 cu. We have 23 feet in the foundation, and then the remaining 15 feet goes to the service where it is connected to the grounded conductor.

Unfortunately, this is a literal violation of 250.24(D) which requires that a grounding electrode conductor be used to connect the equipment grounding conductors, the service enclosures, and the grounded conductor to the grounding electrode. There is no allowance for a grounding electrode to attach directly to the service enclosures, the EGCs, or the grounded conductor. You MUST use a GEC for this.

 

[tryinghard]

No kidding.



Again, No kidding :smile:



Again part II, no kidding.

What does any of that have to do with this thread?

In your opinion nothing

 

[iwire]

In your opinion nothing

Don't be offended, I just don't see how using a copper conductor in place of the re-bar fits in at all with the topic of this thread.

I started this thread to talk about re-bar stub outs.

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

If you have another topic to discuss feel free to start a new thread and drop a link on this one. :smile: Not being a wise guy, I am serious.

IMO all threads about grounding become confusing so it helps to try to confine the discussion to one particular grounding subject at a time.

 

[mpd]

iwire

great thread, 15 pages and counting, I agree with you so i can't argue with you on this one, and i also agree about grounding threads

 

[tryinghard]

Don't be offended, I just don't see how using a copper conductor in place of the re-bar fits in at all with the topic of this thread.

I started this thread to talk about re-bar stub outs.

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

If you have another topic to discuss feel free to start a new thread and drop a link on this one. :smile: Not being a wise guy, I am serious.

IMO all threads about grounding become confusing so it helps to try to confine the discussion to one particular grounding subject at a time.

Thanks for checking but I?m more amazed then offended - :-? - because the #4 electrode shares the same sentence as the rebar ? stub - in the description of a CEE. Anyway I tried to succinctly convey my points. While I enjoy discussing NEC and electrical issues I argued the points that I feel are relevant and you have a right to your opinion, I?m just not wanting to ?play 20 questions? either .

Often I will start a thread but I feel enough?s been said here on the topic as a whole so I don?t see the need. Most of us are here to understand the NEC better, we?ll decipher, analyze, argue, debate, and critique to do this and appropriately so. I feel your thread has conveyed this well!

 

[crossman]

Tryinghard:

Question:

A 5/8" rebar is stubbed up out of the concrete foundation from a code-compliant rebar CEE. The grounding electrode conductor is connected to the rebar stub.

A. This is a code violation
B. This is not a code violation

 

[e57]

Quote:
Originally Posted by e57
How can the same continuous piece be two things at the same time?


Because the code we follow says it is.

(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode. An electrode encased by at least 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete, located within and near the bottom 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 (? 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 does it say it ends at 20' - or is considered anything else outside of this 20', or say that it is considered anything else outside of concrete.

 

[crossman]

Because:

1. The NEC text says that the electrode is encased by at least 2" of concrete. A conductor encased in air is not encased by 2" of concrete.

2. There is no provision in the code for an electrode to connect directly to the service equipment grounds, enclosures, and grounded conductor. A grounding electrode conductor shall be used for this purpose.

Therefore, that portion of the #4 copper that is not encased in concrete and is attached to the service grounded conductor must be a GEC, not an electrode.

BTW, this is completely off-topic of the OP. My previous post is the crux of the question.

 

[e57]

BTW, this is completely off-topic of the OP. My previous post is the crux of the question.

I think not - as I am sure you would apply the say argument to either material - copper or rebar. BOB's OP does... He is considering a portion of rebar outside of the concrete a GEC - and as steel not an acceptable GEC...

The argument can be applied to either material:

According to Bobs OP - he is considering Point A as a point where he considers it a GEC - because it is no longer encased - if following that same line of thinking points B would also be a GEC because it is no longer "near the bottom" of the footing. So following that only C would be an electrode.

In my argument - (D) is neither as both materials are continuous pieces - the same material - the same item - and since code not only allows - but requires the connection to the electrode be accessible in 250.68 - but backs away from this as a 'permissible exception' for the connection to be encased IF the connector is listed for the purpose to be encased by way of 250.70.

And YES if you say took a solid contiuous #4 copper and use it as a CEE and land it on the neutral bar of the main panel - you do not have a GEC - as you just landed one end of your electrode directy....

 

[e57]

And YES if you say took a solid contiuous #4 copper and use it as a CEE and land it on the neutral bar of the main panel - you do not have a GEC - as you just landed one end of your electrode directy....

To add - if you stubbed up rebar under a main cabinet and found some (rare) lug rated for connection to steel, strong armed it and applied that to your neutral bar - you would have simularly applied your "electrode" directly to the neutral.

 

[tryinghard]

Tryinghard:

Question:

A 5/8" rebar is stubbed up out of the concrete foundation from a code-compliant rebar CEE. The grounding electrode conductor is connected to the rebar stub.

A. This is a code violation
B. This is not a code violation

This is a code violation

The stub is a very common practice though.

Wait a minute Post #154 just swayed me!

 

[crossman]

Post number 154 is incorrect in the assumption that the rebar at "B" is not part of the grounding electrode.

Read the section carefully: >>horizontally near the bottom<< OR >>vertically<<

The "near the bottom" only refers to the horizontal part. So, a vertical portion of rebar encased in 2" of concrete is still an electrode. The vertical portion does not need to be near the bottom.

Gotta read real carefully.

 

[crossman]

To add - if you stubbed up rebar under a main cabinet and found some (rare) lug rated for connection to steel, strong armed it and applied that to your neutral bar - you would have simularly applied your "electrode" directly to the neutral.

Are you saying this would be in conformance with the NEC? Or a violation?

 

[iwire]

Mark, excellent graphic, thanks for taking the time to make it and post it.

I was away for a bit and crossman has answered your questions in much the same way as I would have.

If it's not surrounded by concrete it is no longer a concrete encased electrode. That really is not interpretation or opinion, that is a fact found in 250.52(A)(3)

The fact that it could be one long unbroken section of material has nothing to do with it being an CEE or not.

As to your graphic, I would move point 'A' 2" into the concrete. Once that is done everything from 'A' into the cement may well be a CEE. Anything from 'A' to the panel has to be a GEC.

To add - if you stubbed up rebar under a main cabinet and found some (rare) lug rated for connection to steel, strong armed it and applied that to your neutral bar - you would have similarly applied your "electrode" directly to the neutral.

Lets say you did that, per the NEC the 'system' would not be grounded. The NEC requires that the system be grounded by a connecting a GEC to the neutral. 250.24(A).

 

[crossman]

Not to sidetrack things, but "near the bottom" is unenforcable code anyway. What is near? Depends on what you compare to. The distance from the earth to the sun?