Concrete encased electrode for residential home?

[kwired]

Years ago we did several additions where the Architect specified 3/8" rebar so no CEE was required. Whether or not there is a CEE required is a building code issue not a NEC issue.

All in the wording.

Building code doesn't actually require a CEE. It may or may not require a footing design that qualifies as a CEE per NEC though. It is the NEC that requires use of it if it is present.

 

[infinity]

All in the wording.

Building code doesn't actually require a CEE. It may or may not require a footing design that qualifies as a CEE per NEC though. It is the NEC that requires use of it if it is present.

Yes that's my point (maybe it didn't come out that way). The building code does or does not require the rebar. Without the rebar the CEE requirement from the NEC is moot.

 

[kwired]

Yes that's my point (maybe it didn't come out that way). The building code does or does not require the rebar. Without the rebar the CEE requirement from the NEC is moot.

I kind of figured that was what you intended, but your wording left room for misunderstanding, which I also believe is why there are some that either require a CEE or think one is required in all cases, when that isn't what code actually says. (Charlies rule does come into play here).

 

[hillbilly1]

Around here the CEE connection is inspected by the building inspector during the footing form inspection before the pour. No CEE, no pour.

I once had a job with an addition/new service and the customer asked if the new footings needed a CEE. The rebar was only 3/8" so the answer was no. Building inspector came for the form inspection and failed it for no CEE. The HO's father told him with 3/8" rebar it wasn't required but he didn't care so the old man ran to home depot and bought some bare copper and a clamp. Inspector came back later and passed it and then they poured. Turns out he bought #8 copper for a 200 amp service so I ended up just cutting it off and throwing it away.

Had the same thing happen last year, footer got inspected, but someone had run #8 to the ufer. 200 amp service. Went ahead and drove two ground rods just in case the inspector noticed. They had also used a 2” plumbing 90 in the wall from the panel to the meter/main combo. That was a pita getting the wire from the panel to the meter! Wasn’t my job, and my name wasn’t on the permit! LOL! All I was there to do was make up the panel for one of the bosses.

 

[kwired]

Had the same thing happen last year, footer got inspected, but someone had run #8 to the ufer. 200 amp service. Went ahead and drove two ground rods just in case the inspector noticed. They had also used a 2” plumbing 90 in the wall from the panel to the meter/main combo. That was a pita getting the wire from the panel to the meter! Wasn’t my job, and my name wasn’t on the permit! LOL! All I was there to do was make up the panel for one of the bosses.

Seems like in majority of cases if there is one such elbow there likely needs to be a second one to exit the wall, unless it turns and goes horizontally and exits at end of said wall.

 

[hillbilly1]

Back when I was doing WalMart’s from the ground up, they required a ufer at every transformer, along with the service. Inspector didn’t look at as far as I know, but the GC had to take pictures of it. When I built my house in the early 90’s, I installed a ufer for the service even though it wasn’t required at the time, and we had no inspections.

 

[hillbilly1]

Seems like in majority of cases if there is one such elbow there likely needs to be a second one to exit the wall, unless it turns and goes horizontally and exits at end of said wall.

It was under the panel, turned straight into the back of the meter. Hidden in the Sheetrock.

 

[kwired]

It was under the panel, turned straight into the back of the meter. Hidden in the Sheetrock.

Ahh, I wasn't thinking about flush panel. Not that I never run into them but seems most I do are surface mounted.

 

[Abdel Rahman Mohamed]

If I;m not mistaken, all electrode systems must be interconnected.

yes we did that at the end and connected all together.

 

[Abdel Rahman Mohamed]

The CEE will likely have less resistance to earth than your other electrodes, unless you keep adding material and re-measuring until you reach a specific resistance like they do in some instances. But for minimal NEC compliance a CEE will almost always be less resistance than two ground rods are.

That's correct by measurement, I agree with you

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Which mas happening probably over 95% of the time and reason NEC changed to wording it now has some 10-15 years ago. They wanted to see that CEE being utilized as much as possible.

We have addressed that by requiring the concrete contractor to provide an accessible connection point to the footing rebar. The building inspector checks for this on the inspection of the footing rebar.

 

[tortuga]

Building code doesn't actually require a CEE.

I am not so sure about Nebraska but its in the WA/OR/CA Residential Codes.

I hadn't quite realized that the NEC doesn't require a CEE (or building steel) in new construction). Is there another section of commonly adopted building codes that requires it?

Just like voltage drop its in that spiderweb of 'other codes' that impact us, in my case the Oregon Residential code under foundations, here is the exerpt from Oregon:

R403.1.7 Grounding electrodes. When concrete reinforcing
bars are installed in concrete footings, the following
requirements shall be met to provide for a grounding
eletrode system:
1. Uncoated No. 4 reinforcing bar installed not less than
3 inches (76 mm) from the bottom of the footing and
not less than 20 feet (6096 mm) in length encased with
a minimum of 2 inches (51 mm) of concrete.

2. An uncoated No. 4 reinforcing bar stubbed up at least
12 inches (305 mm) above the floor plate line and
tightly attached to the reinforcing bar located in the
footing. The spliced lap of the stubbed up bar to the
footing bar shall be a minimum of 12 inches (305 mm).

etc etc...

In WA its

WAC 296-46B-250:

In CA I believe it's in local codes here is an example:

E-08X Concrete Encased Electrodes (UFER) Ground

sonomacounty.ca.gov

 

[wwhitney]

In CA I believe it's in local codes here is an example:

E-08X Concrete Encased Electrodes (UFER) Ground

sonomacounty.ca.gov

I agree with your WA and OR references (thank you), but I don't think there's anything comparable in CA. I don't see anything in the link above that says a CEE must be installed or created.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[tortuga]

Your right that dosent clearly state its required,
Its been a while, but I remember it being 'required' for new construction when pouring a footing with #4 bar in it and a pex water service.
CA seems to have lots of local county level codes that can vary.

 

[Joe.B]

As with many things in code it is not clearly spelled out, I wish it was. From my perspective it's in the code as referenced in posts #6,#7, #18 and others. "When available." Sure, that's open to interpretation, but it seems clear from the posting here that it's fairly common practice and widely accepted. As an inspector I have seen the plans and I know the footing will qualify for a CEE, I take the responsibility of talking to the builders long before the concrete is coming and make sure they know that I expect to see it before concrete. Then when they call for inspection it's not a surprise and usually they have it right.

 

[wwhitney]

I think there's no question that "when available" is commonly taken in CA to mean that if you are constructing a foundation that qualifies as a CEE, you better provide a means to connect to it before the concrete is cast.

In my mind the only question is whether you have the option to avoid making a CEE by, say, using non-conductive rebar or putting a vapor barrier under all the footings. Clearly the WA and OR amendments don't allow that, but I haven't yet seen anything comparable in the CA building codes.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Joe.B]

I think there's no question that "when available" is commonly taken in CA to mean that if you are constructing a foundation that qualifies as a CEE, you better provide a means to connect to it before the concrete is cast.

In my mind the only question is whether you have the option to avoid making a CEE by, say, using non-conductive rebar or putting a vapor barrier under all the footings. Clearly the WA and OR amendments don't allow that, but I haven't yet seen anything comparable in the CA building codes.

Cheers, Wayne

I could see that, never had a foundation here that was anything other than rebar. If I had a project that was designed with non-conductive reinforcement but otherwise had a footing that would qualify for a CEE I would say that the provisions for 20' of #4 copper would cover that, and would be "available."

 

[wwhitney]

I could see that, never had a foundation here that was anything other than rebar. If I had a project that was designed with non-conductive reinforcement but otherwise had a footing that would qualify for a CEE I would say that the provisions for 20' of #4 copper would cover that, and would be "available."

I don't see how the language in 250.50/250.52 would require you to make a CEE via 20' of #4 copper if your foundation would not otherwise create a CEE. Obviously it would be a wasted opportunity, but the question is whether it's required or just a good idea.

I happened to speak with a local inspector today who agreed that there's nothing in the CA building codes that requires you to make a CEE when putting in a foundation, if your foundation design doesn't already qualify as one.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Joe.B]

I don't see how the language in 250.50/250.52 would require you to make a CEE via 20' of #4 copper if your foundation would not otherwise create a CEE. Obviously it would be a wasted opportunity, but the question is whether it's required or just a good idea.

I happened to speak with a local inspector today who agreed that there's nothing in the CA building codes that requires you to make a CEE when putting in a foundation, if your foundation design doesn't already qualify as one.

Cheers, Wayne

Yup, if someone really didn't want to do it for some reason I'd be hard pressed to require it, but so far no one has every pushed not to do it. Why not install it if it's available, it's far superior and who "likes" ground rods anyways?

 

[jaggedben]

The tricky part is that that exception that says the CEE doesn't have to be used in "existing buildings or structures" if the concrete makes it inaccessible. So if I pour concrete without remembering to make a connection to the CEE then I have an 'existing structure' with an inaccessible CEE. Grounds rods here we come.

What I've mostly dealt with is inspectors not acknowledging the existence of a CEE unless there's a job card showing it signed off in a special place before the pour. Which is the flip side of requiring it to be done before the pour, let alone requiring extra measures to install a CEE if the pour happens without a proper GEC to CEE installed.