concrete encased electrode
- Thread starter kstanton5
- Start date
- Status
- Location
- Logan, Utah
It is quite common to see engineering specs that require a larger CEE than what 250.66(B) requires.
I have seen engineered specs and plans that show a 3/0 run to a single ground rod.:roll:
Chris
I have seen engineered specs and plans that show a 3/0 run to a single ground rod.:roll:
Chris
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
I believe a portion of the reason for larger size conductors in regards to the grounding electrode conductor, is the lack of understanding the function associated with this conductor. Engineers are taught differently than the electrician, some of the fundamentals of this industry. Couple that with the fear of litigation, and we see 4/0 Copper GEC to 8ft ground rods, etc...
conrete encased electrode
conrete encased electrode
Thanks for the insight. Now for another question regarding the concrete encased electrode. After talking to the general contracter's superintendent,he has informed me that it is his companies policy to stub up a piece of rebar so that I may attach to it! After telling him that I do not want him to do this because then it is no longer concrete encased,he informs me that that is the way he has always seen it done and he has been doing this for 38 years! Any suggestions convincing him otherwise.
conrete encased electrode
Thanks for the insight. Now for another question regarding the concrete encased electrode. After talking to the general contracter's superintendent,he has informed me that it is his companies policy to stub up a piece of rebar so that I may attach to it! After telling him that I do not want him to do this because then it is no longer concrete encased,he informs me that that is the way he has always seen it done and he has been doing this for 38 years! Any suggestions convincing him otherwise.
- Location
- Massachusetts
A lot of areas do the stub up.
Pierre C Belarge
Senior Member
- Location
- Westchester County, New York
Technically, the CEE is to be within the concrete, no less than 2 inches.
Also, some building departments frown on the practice of taking the rebar and exposing it.
Make sure you do not run into that issue.
Also, some building departments frown on the practice of taking the rebar and exposing it.
Make sure you do not run into that issue.
drbond24
Senior Member
- Location
- Barboursville, West Virginia
This is most of the reason. When engineers do something right, no one cares because that is what is supposed to happen. When they do something wrong, all hell breaks loose. Better safe than sorry.
Cavie
Senior Member
- Location
- SW Florida
you can expose it into a wall. You cannot expose it underground. It will rust off.
A/A Fuel GTX
Senior Member
- Location
- WI & AZ
- Occupation
- Electrician
I have the concrete guy stub a piece of rebar out from the footing. Then I go to the site and bend the rebar down so it will be below the poured floor level, attach my #4 and a listed clamp and tie it off to a form tie until I can get back to install the service.
- Location
- Chapel Hill, NC
- Occupation
- Retired Electrical Contractor
This may be a violation since rebar degrades when exposed to soil. I had heard this but am not definite about it.
A/A Fuel GTX
Senior Member
- Location
- WI & AZ
- Occupation
- Electrician
No Dennis.....The rebar and clamp end up embedded in the concrete floor.
In some jurisdictions, an inspection buyoff of the UFER in slab or footer with an encased bonding clamp is necessary. One problem with the NEC is that there is no mention of the UFER stub up used as a wired portion of the footer rebar form that must be a minimum of three inch encasement. Even though the 2" rule for using the rebar as the CEE, the wired in stub is a structural condition violation. IRC [R403.1.3.1] Are there any inspectors here that are aware of this requirement? I wonder how inspections are being bought off prior to the pour? rbj
- Location
- Logan, Utah
Yes, as a combination inspector I am aware of that section. That section deals with foundations with stem walls in seismic design catagories D0, D1 and D2. Here is what that section requires.
R403.1.3.1 Foundations with stemwalls. Foundations with stem walls shall have installed a minimum of one #4 bar within 12 inches of the top of the wall and one #4 bar located 3 inches to 4 inches from the bottom of the footing.
Chris
Thanks Chris, How would this be applicable in slab floor construction where the slab portion is used for the UFER and the floor thickness is the minimum 4"?
Well here is the POV of an engineer who is guilty of this practice.
In the industry I work in we have engineering and installation practices to follow written by geeks like me. Makes life simple. The industry practices meet or exceed any code requirements. Basically we error on the side of caution, vs an EC POV of meeting the minimum (financial/code) requirement.
Now I do not say that to start any flaming, we just have different POV’s and interest at stake.
In the industry I work in we have engineering and installation practices to follow written by geeks like me. Makes life simple. The industry practices meet or exceed any code requirements. Basically we error on the side of caution, vs an EC POV of meeting the minimum (financial/code) requirement.
Now I do not say that to start any flaming, we just have different POV’s and interest at stake.
Last edited:
Hi Derek,
I know what you are saying and believe all trades on either side of the fence make for interesting questions to solutions. I am not looking to stir up any electrons with the cement guys, but their codes tend to open up questions like the UFER-structure combined application.
Another rebar question comes to mind as to the stub up tie minimum length to the footer rebar. (I.e. 24" minimum Lap splice [R511.7.1.3] for rebar UFER stub up tie-in.) The NEC has no mention for wire bonding in many areas. rbj
- Location
- Logan, Utah
It wouldn't this section only deals with the required seismic reinforcing requirements for a footing and stem wall. Floor slabs are not footings. There are monolithic slabs that do incorporate a footing within the slab. Slab on grades with turn down footings are addressed in IRC section R403.1.3.2 for seismic design categories D0, D1 and D2.
R403.1.3.2 Slabs-on-ground with turned-down footings. Slabs-on-ground with turned-down footings shall have a minimum of 1 #4 bar at the top and bottom of the footing.
Exception: For slabs-on-ground cast monolithically with a footing, 1 #5 bar or 2 #4 bars shall be located in the middle third of the footing depth.
Chris
Sorry for not being a little more specific. Occasionally a garage slab poured into a stemwall with ledge has a stub up in the floor. This is I believe a non-compliant use of a CEE due to less than the minimum encasement and the location of the stub up without protection.
This brings up conflict as a poor method for using the slab as an electrode encasement. Most installers do not include a protective raceway over the GEC in this method. Would you tag this particular lack of encasement thickness over grade configuration as unacceptable? rbj
- Location
- Logan, Utah
The ACI 318 and 332 standards deal with the requirement for minimum concrete encasement for structural reinforcing bars.
I would fail a CEE that used #4 re-bar that did not meet the required concrete encasement of these standards as referenced in the building codes.
Chris
Thanks Chris, I have run into this once before with the UFER being considered structural because of the interlacing to the floor mesh. rbj
- Status