Connection to the Concrete Encased Electrode

[ivsenroute]

I recently inspected a SFR for a rough wiring which was not complete because the location of the POCO UG feed was moved from the front of the house to the back. It has not been trenched yet and the service entrance equipment has not been installed.

The original, approved drawings showed the service entrance at the front left of the home which is the garage. There was suppose to be one 200A panel there.

When I got there, I found there were two 200amp panels that were fed with SE cable from the back of the house and the two panels were on the left side of the garage towards the back instead of where they were planned. Nothing is connected at the SE side and the SE cable is just curled up the the back left corner of the house (inside) that room will be a bedroom so I am assuming they will be installed an exterior disconnect. Who knows......

Anyway, they had already preplanned a Concrete Encased Electrode at the front left of the house (front wall of the garage) and there was plenty of slack in the #4 stranded bare copper to make it up the the originally planned panel.

Now they will either have to install the typical 2 ground rods at the rear exterior unless they run a grounding electrode conductor to the stub out of the CEE.

With that being said, anything short of an exothermic weld, would they not be required to make the connection using an aluminum or copper busbar to comply with 250.64(C)?

What is your opinion?

Besides the other issues of course that are causing me to return and ask for more information. I can only make another assumption that they are going to install a 320a continuous meter base for this application.

Thoughts?

 

[raider1]

They can splice onto the #4 stranded with an irreversible crimp and extend the GEC to the new panel location.

If you are using the 2005 NEC and barring any local changes, you must use the CEE. You can not ignore it and just install 2 ground rods. 250.50 requires that all grounding electrodes that are present must be used.

Chris

 

[ivsenroute]

They can splice onto the #4 stranded with an irreversible crimp and extend the GEC to the new panel location.

If you are using the 2005 NEC and barring any local changes, you must use the CEE. You can not ignore it and just install 2 ground rods. 250.50 requires that all grounding electrodes that are present must be used.

Chris

Excellent point by stating 250.50 and reminding me about the irreversible crimp.

Yes this is NEC 2005 territory.

No one was there and I have to go back so I can cover this one a little better by providing better references.

 

[cadpoint]

I recently inspected a SFR for a rough wiring which was not complete ...

The original, approved drawings showed the service entrance at the front left of the home which is the garage. There was suppose to be one 200A panel there.
...
Thoughts?

Yeah, oh a few... what is a rough in ?
This frankly gets me as to what a rough is, maybe I'm to commerical, isn't that what gets covered up?

Does a Rough-In require an assumption on your part ? (thats only the first part of that thougth) But to go on, If all the correct aspects of service, equipment, devices, and enclosures are present, checked / inspected and are Code compliant even negating some bump in size, if the numbers are right, the numbers are right! I'm not talking about the correct response as given by the Mod.

Did you quailfy that you expected a new drawings showing your assumed situation? Or what they are going to apply here? Was there any limit set for them to answer to ? Oh, the myriad of questions, I could go on.

Is there some AHJ rule as to playing with the design of the structure?
I've seen inspection sheets, based on size of service, number of devices and types of equipment!

If the electrican is playing with the size what about the a/c air guy or joe the plumber ?

I don't mean to be a cynic, but I guess I am.

Oh, did they pass there rough-in

 

[infinity]

I agree with Chris, they must use the CEE and not the ground rods which wouldn't be required once the CEE is used.

 

[ivsenroute]

Yeah, oh a few... what is a rough in ?
This frankly gets me as to what a rough is, maybe I'm to commerical, isn't that what gets covered up?

Does a Rough-In require an assumption on your part ? (thats only the first part of that thougth) But to go on, If all the correct aspects of service, equipment, devices, and enclosures are present, checked / inspected and are Code compliant even negating some bump in size, if the numbers are right, the numbers are right! I'm not talking about the correct response as given by the Mod.

Did you quailfy that you expected a new drawings showing your assumed situation? Or what they are going to apply here? Was there any limit set for them to answer to ? Oh, the myriad of questions, I could go on.

Is there some AHJ rule as to playing with the design of the structure?
I've seen inspection sheets, based on size of service, number of devices and types of equipment!

If the electrican is playing with the size what about the a/c air guy or joe the plumber ?

I don't mean to be a cynic, but I guess I am.

Oh, did they pass there rough-in

You make some very valid points but I did not want to cover that part of what is going on, just the NEC 250 portion.

As far as what has tranpired, they will be required to submit the changes for approval and of course I will want to see another calculated load. There were some 240 circuits there that were not on the plan.

Bottom line, they are not ready for rough in due to a lack of a service, along with the unauthorized changes that were made.

Paperwork, approval of paperwork and reinspection when they are ready. Until then the insulation contractor must wait.

 

[e57]

They can splice onto the #4 stranded with an irreversible crimp and extend the GEC to the new panel location.

If you are using the 2005 NEC and barring any local changes, you must use the CEE. You can not ignore it and just install 2 ground rods. 250.50 requires that all grounding electrodes that are present must be used.

Chris

So I assume that you are of the thinking that the CEE becomes a GEC as soon as it exits the concrete? And consider the connection to the CEE a splice of the GEC? Yes the questions are agenda driven...

That said, IMO they could chip out to some rebar in the back of the structure at the footing there.

 

[raider1]

So I assume that you are of the thinking that the CEE becomes a GEC as soon as it exits the concrete?

A #4 stranded conductor that extends out of the top of the foundation would, at that point, be the GEC. The CEE would be the portion of the wire that is at or near the bottom of the footing.

And consider the connection to the CEE a splice of the GEC? Yes the questions are agenda driven...

No the connection to the CEE would be in the footing. The wire that wextends out of the top of the foundation would be the GEC.

That said, IMO they could chip out to some rebar in the back of the structure at the footing there.

I agree, if there is rebar in the footing.

Chris

 

[chris kennedy]

That said, IMO they could chip out to some rebar in the back of the structure at the footing there.

I agree, if there is rebar in the footing.

Chris

How would you know if your picking up 20' of rebar or a small piece that fell in during the pour?

 

[raider1]

How would you know if your picking up 20' of rebar or a small piece that fell in during the pour?

Typically small pieces of rebar aren't floating in the middle of the footing.

Seriously though, I have accepted a connection to the footing steel by chisling down to the reinforcing steel where there was no provisions made at the time of the pour.

Here the footing steel is required to be continious through the footing so if you find a section of rebar that is in the middle of the footing it is most likely going to be the continious reinforcing bar.

Chris

 

[acrwc10]

Typically small pieces of rebar aren't floating in the middle of the footing.

Seriously though, I have accepted a connection to the footing steel by chisling down to the reinforcing steel where there was no provisions made at the time of the pour.

Here the footing steel is required to be continious through the footing so if you find a section of rebar that is in the middle of the footing it is most likely going to be the continious reinforcing bar.

Chris

I had to do that resently since I was given a job after the foundation was poured, I still added a ground ro to be sure of an earth ground.

[/IMG]

 

[raider1]

Great picture! That is pretty much exactly what we had done.

Chris

 

[iwire]

Is that clamp listed for re-bar?

 

[jwelectric]

If they install two rods as outlined in 250.52(A)(5) and install a Grounding Electrode Conductor to the rods that is sized to 250.66(B) wouldn?t it be acceptable to install a bonding jumper to the tail left on the concrete encased electrode and connect with an ordinary split bolt as outlined in 250.53(C)?

Sounds like a simple fix to me!

 

[raider1]

Is that clamp listed for re-bar?

I believe that it is.

Or at least that I have seen clamps identical to that one that are listed for rebar connection and concrete encasement.

Chris

 

[Dennis Alwon]

They can splice onto the #4 stranded with an irreversible crimp and extend the GEC to the new panel location.

Chris

From your other post

A #4 stranded conductor that extends out of the top of the foundation would, at that point, be the GEC. The CEE would be the portion of the wire that is at or near the bottom of the footing.

I assume you mean that the GEC stops at the point which the #4 exits the concrete.

Suppose I stub up a piece of rebar-- do I have to use a irreversible connection onto the rebar. I am thinking the grounding electrode can extend above the concrete and a #4 can continue with a split bolt or any approved splicing method.

 

[e57]

A #4 stranded conductor that extends out of the top of the foundation would, at that point, be the GEC. The CEE would be the portion of the wire that is at or near the bottom of the footing.

If the connection was to rebar - I would agree. But if it were 20'+ of wire, I would fail to see how it could be two things at once, one thing on one end, a different thing on the other.

How would you know if your picking up 20' of rebar or a small piece that fell in during the pour?

1. Most structural details would be available for a new building
2. The rebar is allowed to be multiple pieces tie wired in the usual manner as allowed by the NEC - it would not need to be 20' long in a single piece, just tie wired to others to make up that (at least) 20'. And doubtfull that they failed to tie wire any piece of rebar in at least one point.
3. Odds are pretty high, that any piece running length-wise in the footing will be a single peice, or in the very least lapped to others.
4. Even if the above were not available, and inspector wanted to be a nit-pick - you could have the concrete scanned to locate said rebar.

Not sure this clamp is rated for connection to rebar?????

 

[iwire]

Suppose I stub up a piece of rebar-- do I have to use a irreversible connection onto the rebar. I am thinking the grounding electrode can extend above the concrete and a #4 can continue with a split bolt or any approved splicing method.

In my opinion there is no such thing as a CEE outside of concrete.

Per the NECs description the CEE only exists inside a minimum of 2" of concrete. This interpretation prohibits using a rebar stub out as the point of attachment and therefore is not a popular or accepted interpretation even though it is what the words in the NEC say.

 

[frizbeedog]

In my opinion there is no such thing as a CEE outside of concrete.

I believe you started a thread on that very topic recently. Good stuff.

 

[iwire]

I believe you started a thread on that very topic recently. Good stuff.

I don't know if it was good stuff but thanks. :smile:

At the very least it got some thinking going.

CEE Rebar Stub Out? I don't think so