CEE (Ufer) Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

txinspect

Member
I have read through a lot of posts after a search and only found one thread that specifically dealt with the question that I am about to ask; however, only a few weighed in with their interpretations. I hope that more will respond this time...lol.

In my area we have contractors using 4 AWG bare copper for concrete encased electrodes. The installation itself is fine; however, they generally leave only 12" or so out of the concrete. Then at the rough in stage they will splice another 4 AWG to this and continue to the panel.

Our current debate is: Should this splice be with an irreversible compression connector?

We have valid points on both sides of the argument, such as:

The CEE is no longer an electrode when it leaves the encasement. It then becomes a GEC and under code rule you have to splice a GEC with an irreversible or cadweld. (CEE denotes "encasement" and 20' at or near the bottom of the footing. The CEE is therefore the encased electrode. When it leaves the encasement it is no longer a concrete encased electrode).

Versus

The CEE is still an electrode when it leaves the encasement. Then the splice itself is a GEC to to grounding electrode splice and you can use the appropriate connector...i.e. it does not have to be irreversible. (We are generally seeing split bolt connectors used in this application).

_______________

I personally tend to side with the former. I believe that this connection should be irreversible. For example, if we have to splice 2 - 4 AWG conductors to run a ground to metallic cold water piping...the splice has to be irreversible. What is being done with the CEE is the identical connection: 2 - 4AWG conductors!

I haven't checked the actual listing requirements on split bolt connectors as the only time I ever used these when I used to be an electrician...lol...is to splice 2 ungrounded conductors together and the insulation around the split bolt had to match the insulation on the conductors. Perhaps split bolts are allowed to be used for 2 bare conductors. However, in the application listed at the beginning of this long post....can this be done?

Thanks to all who reply.

TXInspect
 
If the CEE ends at the 12" piece of conductor and the GEC begins where they are mechanically connected with a split bolt, than how is this any different than the GEC being mechanically connected to the water pipe with a grounding clamp?
 
infinity said:
If the CEE ends at the 12" piece of conductor and the GEC begins where they are mechanically connected with a split bolt, than how is this any different than the GEC being mechanically connected to the water pipe with a grounding clamp?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply.

That is one of the questions. Does the CEE end at the 12" piece of conductor or does it end when it leaves its encasement?

In your example you mention the mechanical connection to the water pipe. Yes this is "mechanically" connecting. However, if you connect 2 bare copper conductors together, is this a mechanical connection or a splice that should be irreversible?
 
txinspect said:
Thanks for the reply.

That is one of the questions. Does the CEE end at the 12" piece of conductor or does it end when it leaves its encasement?

In your example you mention the mechanical connection to the water pipe. Yes this is "mechanically" connecting. However, if you connect 2 bare copper conductors together, is this a mechanical connection or a splice that should be irreversible?
Click to expand...


Honestly I don't know. The examples that I provided are functionally identical, therefore it is my opinion that the GEC begins at the point of connection to the CEE. Thus the connection would not need to be of an irreversible type. The real question is where does the CEE end and the GEC begin. Some jurisdictions allow a piece of rebar to be stubbed out out the footing for connection of the GEC. Would this be the same as allowing a piece of #4 CU stubbed out for the connection of the GEC?
 
infinity said:
Honestly I don't know. The examples that I provided are functionally identical, therefore it is my opinion that the GEC begins at the point of connection to the CEE. Thus the connection would not need to be of an irreversible type. The real question is where does the CEE end and the GEC begin. Some jurisdictions allow a piece of rebar to be stubbed out out the footing for connection of the GEC. Would this be the same as allowing a piece of #4 CU stubbed out for the connection of the GEC?
Click to expand...

Yes, our AHJ allows rebar to be used as the CEE as well and the GEC is connected to this. This is also a good argument as the rebar is still an electrode at the point of connection. Now comes the other problematic question:

The connection from GEC to rebar is fine with a listed connector, i.e. rebar clamp.

The connection from bare copper to bare copper - can you use a split bolt connector? And if you can, why can you not in any other application?

If the split bolt is fine in this instance....then it should be fine if I run about 2 feet short of reaching my water service piping and I just use a split bolt to get where I need to go. No because then it is a GEC splice...well, both examples are the same type of splice.

So, yes, there are multiple problems with this seemingly innocent question...lol.
 
Isn't the conductor from the electrical panel to the CEE a grounding electrode conductor?
Then it can be splice with exothermic or irrreversible compression splices.
 
tom baker said:
Isn't the conductor from the electrical panel to the CEE a grounding electrode conductor?
Then it can be splice with exothermic or irrreversible compression splices.
Click to expand...

I think that he's saying that the point where the GEC connects to the CEE a mechanical connection is all that's required. I would agree with that, however if your GEC is 2' short, then breakout the hypress or the cadweld kit.
 
I'm going to stop playing the devil's advocate for awhile and give other board members time to chime in. As I have seen some on this board state that the grounding electrode conductor begins when the 4 AWG leaves the encasement.

For example, Dereckbc's reply to this very question on a post from 2003. Hopefully, he will chime in here:
________________________

"Ufer Madness
When installing a Ufer ground I usually place 20 feet of #4 in the footing and run the wire uncut back to the switchgear.

When does the concrete encased electrode end and the grounding electrode conductor begin?


svaurez

dereckbc dereckbc is offline
Senior Member

Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,866
Default Re: Ufer Madness

At the point where the # 4 AWG enters the concrete.
__________________
Moderator
Dereck Campbell, PE,Telecom CO Power Engineer

____________________________________________________
 
I think this issue is being over thought. Considering the GES has such a limited role, too much emphasis is on unimportant aspects of the GES such as surge impedance, ground resistance, and materials and connections.

I truly believe either method should be acceptable.
 
It's always been my opinion that the GEC stops at the connection inside the footer. I also agree with bhp gravity that either method should be acceptable. That ain't always so with the AHJ.
steve
 
I feel that the #4 sticking out of the footing is the electrode and that the #4 from attaching to it is the GEC, and that the connection does not need to be irreversible.

When I do one, I do either leave enought #4 to reach the panel or else I cadweld it. Again, though, I don't feel that I'm required to do this.

JMO

John
 
txinspect said:
I have read through a lot of posts after a search and only found one thread that specifically dealt with the question that I am about to ask; however, only a few weighed in with their interpretations.
Click to expand...
Can you post a link to that thread?

We had a blowout over this a while back, a very large thread, and the search engine is not finding it. I'm sure iwire, Charlie B and myself uttered the word "encased" 498 times throughout the discussion, but the search engine isn't finding it. :(
 
ryan_618 said:
I agree with Bryan's sentiments, however, from a strict code perspective, I beleive the connection must be irreversible.
Click to expand...

Ok, now I will throw the other problem in the fire.

Maybe this is indeed being overthought and the debate is not necessarily that important; however, I just mentioned irreversibles and split bolt connectors as these are the 2 that I see and pass everyday.

Our other inspectors are seeing some weird connectors, i.e. one electrical contractor wants is using the lug itself from a panel kit to make this connection. Another was using a piece of the ground bar itself...one conductor under one screw and one under the other. Are these mechanical connections? Yes. Are they permissible?????

Basically, my concern is that if you say you don't have to use an irreversible....then you are leaving the interpretation wide open to allow a contractor to use any mechanical connection that can be used for 2 bare conductors.

One could even dig deeper into the debate and say...if the piece sticking out of the foundation is the grounding electrode....is a split bolt connector a listed connector to connect a grounding electrode with a GEC?

Anyway, as I stated earlier, I just feel that it is a bad ideal to leave this interpretation open.

Thanks again to everyone that has replied.
 
georgestolz said:
Can you post a link to that thread?

We had a blowout over this a while back, a very large thread, and the search engine is not finding it. I'm sure iwire, Charlie B and myself uttered the word "encased" 498 times throughout the discussion, but the search engine isn't finding it. :(
Click to expand...

George,

I have to head out on the inspection run today, but I will look for the thread tonight. I honestly have not seen the thread that you are mentioning but would love to read it. I suppose when I searched for various CEE topics, the search engine wasn't finding it for me either.

Perhaps you fellas (you, iwire, and Charlie B) will restate your thoughts in this thread. :)

Take care,

TXInspect
 
txinspect said:
Perhaps you fellas (you, iwire, and Charlie B) will restate your thoughts in this thread. :)
Click to expand...
I hesitate to make a comment, for fear of contradicting whatever I had said in that earlier thread. Maybe I'll get lucky, and nobody will be able to find it. ;) :D

Oh well, life is all about taking risks. OK. No more beating about the bush. Here is my opinion, and I hope it matches what I had posted in the earlier thread.

Non-reversible is not required.

Here is my basis:

Start in 252.52(A)(3). It is really an incomplete sentence that is understood to have begun with, "A 'CEE' means an electrode . . . ." The object of the sentence is the single word "electrode." The rest of the sentence gives more information about the electrode. Each new tidbit of information is separated by a comma. Thus, we have,
? (electrode) encased by . . . ,
? (electrode) located within . . . ,
? (electrode) consisting of . . . ,
? (electrode) . . . or consisting of . . . .

So a CEE is all about being an electrode. Now go to Article 100. The single word "electrode" is not defined, but I hope we can all agree that it is covered by the Article 100 definition of "Grounding Electrode." A "Grounding Electrode" is "a device that establishes an electrical connection to the Earth."

Please note that that definition does not require every single atom within the electrode to be in physical contact with dirt. All it requires is that the "device," as a whole, establish a connection with the Earth. In other words, if you have a 25 foot long wire, and 20 feet of it is underground (whether or not it is encased in concrete), with the last 5 feet leading to the space above the dirt, and with the last 2 feet lying on the ground (waiting for someone to connect something to it), then (IMHO) the entire 25 feet of wire (and not the concrete) comprises the "electrode."

The "device" that establishes an electrical connection to the Earth is the 25 foot long wire. The existence of concrete in the vicinity is not in any way related to this thing being an electrode. The concrete turns an "electrode" into a "concrete-encased electrode," but the wire is an electrode with or without the concrete. Therefore, the suggestion that some of the electrode is not encased in concrete is true, but irrelevant.
 
I don't remember the earlier thread. I must not have been a part of it. When I read George's reference, I thought "uh-oh, maybe I better re-read". I'm glad to see that Charlie agrees with me. I'd love to read the previous thread if anyone finds it.

John
 
bphgravity said:
Don't worry too much about contradicting yourself. I've only done it a couple thousand times on this forum! :O
Click to expand...

IMO it is good to contradict yourself if you were mistaken the 1st 5 or 10 times around. Now if I can cut down on the number of times to just 2 or 6 and reduce the rate of mistakes in the 1st place.:cool:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top