concrete encased electrode

Status
Not open for further replies.
iwire said:
You do not have to make one but if one exists you must use it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but...

For existing, would not that be determined whether by the ability to access without damage given the exception?


Exception: Concrete-encased electrodes of existing build-
ings or structures shall not be required to be part of the
grounding electrode system where the steel reinforcing bars
or rods are not accessible for use without disturbing the
concrete
 
jumper said:
Yes, but...

For existing, would not that be determined whether by the ability to access without damage given the exception?


Exception: Concrete-encased electrodes of existing build-
ings or structures shall not be required to be part of the
grounding electrode system where the steel reinforcing bars
or rods are not accessible for use without disturbing the
concrete
Click to expand...

I would not consider a foundation recently poured as part of the same project I am working on to be existing.
But if the building was complete and certified for occupancy before I started I should be OK.
 
GoldDigger said:
I would not consider a foundation recently poured as part of the same project I am working on to be existing.
But if the building was complete and certified for occupancy before I started I should be OK.
Click to expand...

If it gets poured before you get there, it's existing.:)

Ask Dennis. NC has an amendment that says so.

Many places only require a footing inspection and when the EC or electrical inspector shows up, too late. Sad but true.
 
jumper said:
If it gets poured before you get there, it's existing.:)

Ask Dennis. NC has an amendment that says so.

Many places only require a footing inspection and when the EC or electrical inspector shows up, too late. Sad but true.
Click to expand...


And Dennis hates that amendment... I generally install a ufer but occasionally my builders screw up. If they made it a rule then they wouldn't forget it but once.
 
jumper said:
If it gets poured before you get there, it's existing.:)

Ask Dennis. NC has an amendment that says so.

Many places only require a footing inspection and when the EC or electrical inspector shows up, too late. Sad but true.
Click to expand...
The footing inspector also looks for the concrete encased electrode here. He will not permit the pour unless there is some provision for the concrete encased electrode. We also permit the concrete contractor to connect a #4 copper to the rebar and stub it out for the future use of the EC. Often the EC has not even been selected at the time the footing is poured so this solves the issue for us.
 
jumper said:
If it gets poured before you get there, it's existing.:)

Ask Dennis. NC has an amendment that says so.
Click to expand...

That's true, it's basically the same wording as the 2002 NEC.

AMENDMENT 250.50Amend NEC 2014, page 117:

250.50 Grounding Electrode System. Allgrounding electrodes as described in250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) that are available ateach building or structure served shall be bondedtogether to form the grounding electrode system.Where none of these grounding electrodes exist,one or more of the grounding electrodesspecified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) shallbe installed and used.
Click to expand...


Roger
 
Dennis Alwon said:
And Dennis hates that amendment... I generally install a ufer but occasionally my builders screw up. If they made it a rule then they wouldn't forget it but once.
Click to expand...

don_resqcapt19 said:
The footing inspector also looks for the concrete encased electrode here. He will not permit the pour unless there is some provision for the concrete encased electrode. We also permit the concrete contractor to connect a #4 copper to the rebar and stub it out for the future use of the EC. Often the EC has not even been selected at the time the footing is poured so this solves the issue for us.
Click to expand...

roger said:
That's true, it's basically the same wording as the 2002 NEC.

Roger
Click to expand...

I would say that the real problem exists because of the the footing/rebar rules of the IRC. IBC may be similar for small buildings.

Going from my sketchy memory here, but IIRC SFDs of one possibly two stories in non seismic zones, I think non D catagories, do not always require rebar in the footing, so a building inspector can approve a pour without regard to the NEC or the electrical section of the IRC.

A multi- trade inspector might catch it, but a straight structural one might not.

Totally screwy IMO, till I came East I had never heard of footings without steel.
 
Last edited:
GoldDigger said:
But in one way this goes farther than the NEC and requires all CEEs to be used when there is more than one while the NEC only requires you to connect to one.
Click to expand...
Here is the current wording

All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through
(A)(7) that are present at each building or structure served shall
be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system.
Where none of these grounding electrodes exist , one or more of
the grounding electrodes specified in
250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8)
shall be installed and used.
Click to expand...


So with the exception of " that are available" verses "that are present" the section is the same.

Roger






 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The footing inspector also looks for the concrete encased electrode here. He will not permit the pour unless there is some provision for the concrete encased electrode. We also permit the concrete contractor to connect a #4 copper to the rebar and stub it out for the future use of the EC. Often the EC has not even been selected at the time the footing is poured so this solves the issue for us.
Click to expand...

Same here. During the course of the footing inspection the inspector looks for the attachment to the rebar. They don't care who installed it only that it's present before they sign off on the footing to permit the pour.
 
In Washington, if there is a new building and a connection is not made to reinforcing steel, then you go in and make the connection.
See photo
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0261.jpg
    IMG_0261.jpg
    143.5 KB · Views: 0
don_resqcapt19 said:
If I was the building owner that would not be acceptable to me.
Click to expand...

If it's my building the GC is fixing it on his own dime and restoring the integrity of that section to match the rest of the pour. He can work out the details whether it's on the concrete sub, the electrical sub, he eats it all, or some kind of split. Whatever the building owner bought, I'm pretty sure it wasn't something that looked like that.
 
In Washington if you don't connect to a rebar ufer in a new building you are req'd to expose and connect.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0261.jpg
    IMG_0261.jpg
    143.5 KB · Views: 0
don_resqcapt19 said:
The footing inspector also looks for the concrete encased electrode here. He will not permit the pour unless there is some provision for the concrete encased electrode. We also permit the concrete contractor to connect a #4 copper to the rebar and stub it out for the future use of the EC. Often the EC has not even been selected at the time the footing is poured so this solves the issue for us.
Click to expand...

This is what we do also. :cool:
 
Devil's advocate... if a building inspector inspected the footings and confirmed there was reinforcement that is one thing, if there is no such inspection is it right for an EI to demand breaking up a footing to look for reinforcement that may or may not be there?
 
kwired said:
Devil's advocate... if a building inspector inspected the footings and confirmed there was reinforcement that is one thing, if there is no such inspection is it right for an EI to demand breaking up a footing to look for reinforcement that may or may not be there?
Click to expand...

Well, around here you usually have to have drawings for your foundation work. If the rebar is on the drawing the sledge (or whatever) is coming out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top