Ground Conductor Splicing

don_resqcapt19 · Dec 11, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Bob,
You bring up a good point. You can't connect to a stubbed out rebar. The rebar that is stubbed out of the concrete is not an electrode and it is not a GEC or bonding jumper. The only code compliant way to use the concrete encased rebar as a grounding electorode is to run a
GEC to the electrode.
Don

pierre · Dec 11, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

From Don
"The rebar that is stubbed out of the concrete is not an electrode and it is not a GEC or bonding jumper."

Art 100 Bonding Jumper
A reliable conductor to ensure the required electrical conductivity between metal parts required to be electrically connected.

IEEE Dictionary:
Conductor
(1)(A)(general) a substance or body that allows a current of electricity to pass continuouslay along it.
(2) A material, usually in the form of a wire, cable, or bus bar, suitable for carrying an electric current.

I don't think we can say it is not a reliable conductor, as it is permitted as an electrode. If permitted to be an electrode, it must be considered a conductor.... no?

I do agree that it could not be a GEC or Concrete-encased electrode by definition.

George Stolz · Dec 11, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Originally posted by pierre:
Take 3 deep breaths, stay away from this thread for a little and lets see....

Good advice.

Regardless of what the code may have said prior to '93 we are reading and following the current codes.

That is true.

To humor you though, I will post the '90 code section on this.

I appreciate it, and thank you for taking the time to type it out for me.

or the bonding connection to the interior piping shall not rely on water meters.

I find it interesting that in '90, they did not consider the interior piping part of the electrode. It was literally considered metal piping in need of a bond. Hmm. That is remarkably similar to what I expected to see.

George Stolz · Dec 11, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

I think I have stated my case as best I can, and I'll sum it up in one short statement:

There is no statement granting permission to connect at a point other than underground in (A)(1). It's permitted because it's not prohibited. That standard should be applied to all electrodes.

If a picture would help, I'd draw one, but I don't think it would. IMO, no one really wants to see it differently, with no offense intended with that remark. The 90 text doesn't allow a connection indoors. It simply states that the water meter shouldn't be considered electrically continuous for our purposes, the same as now.

I've expressed my opinion in every way possible, and now it's time for me to shut up. Thanks all for the participation.

pierre · Dec 11, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

George
I think you misunderstood me. I am not asking you to stop posting to this thread, just open your mind to other ideas... that is why stepping away as you did sometimes helps. Also what I am posting is just my opinion

.

Try this,
Cold Water electrode is permitted to be connected to inside the building, of which it has left it's contact with the earth.
Concrete-encased electrode is considered "within" the concrete, and since there is no permission to connect to it outside of the concrete, it is ASSUMED to be connected to inside of (within) the concrete.

don_resqcapt19 · Dec 11, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Pierre,

IEEE Dictionary:
Conductor
(1)(A)(general) a substance or body that allows a current of electricity to pass continuouslay along it.
(2) A material, usually in the form of a wire, cable, or bus bar, suitable for carrying an electric current.

In this case part 2 applies, not the general definition in part 1.
Don

pierre · Dec 11, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

I made sure to include (2) in my post so as to make sure what would be applicable. How do we come to the conclusion that the rebar is not considered a conductor, when it is considered an electrode. I am asking for clarification purposes.
We can use metallic enclosures as bonding jumpers/conductors, why not the rebar?

George Stolz · Dec 11, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Sorry for venting. I will keep all my responses as short as possible, for clarity.

Originally posted by pierre:
Cold Water electrode is permitted to be connected to inside the building, of which it has left it's contact with the earth.

Show me the permission.

pierre · Dec 11, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

George
If it were not for the people who question what has been written/spoken, our Country would not be where it is today. Vent away

It would seem that most who come here do just that.

250.52(A)(1)
the last sentence.

George Stolz · Dec 11, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Thanks for your patience.

That sentence contains only a mandatory statement, as defined in 90.5. So how do you derive permission?

(Survivor's on for three hours now, so I'll be here.

)

edit to add:

I hear the crickets chirping...

[ December 12, 2005, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: georgestolz ]

charlie b · Dec 12, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

I was asked to look into this thread, and to offer an opinion. It is not an easy thread to follow. I will admit that I am not certain where the opposing sides are claiming to hold the "truth" that the other side is missing. Let me see if I can reconstruct the opposing claims, without going into the supporting arguments.

I think the original question has to do with #4 copper wire, and not rebar, being encased in concrete. For clarity, I think that George was suggesting that there might be two cases:

CASE 1 There is a length of wire, of which 20 feet is in concrete, and of which the remaining length is not long enough to reach the service.

CASE 2 There is one #4 copper wire, 20 feet long, encased in concrete. There is a second #4 copper wire, attached to the first wire somewhere within the concrete. It is this second wire that not long enough to reach the service.

George: You started with this:

Originally posted by georgestolz: If the #4 in question is the electrode, then run a GEC sized according to 250.66 to an accessible location and splice the electrode to the GEC using any reversible method.

I think you are saying that this is permitted to be a "CASE 1" installation. You are saying that the wire we have in our hands, the wire we know is not long enough to reach the service, can be a part of the grounding electrode, and can be connected to a separate wire. That separate wire would be a GEC, and you can connect it using the split bolt that the OP originally asked about.

Bob (iwire): I think you are saying that,

It would not matter if the construction had been done in the CASE 1 or the CASE 2 configuration, and

Once the conductor (i.e., #4 copper wire or rebar) had left the concrete, that portion that is outside the concrete is not part of the "electrode," so therefore,

Any connection outside the concrete cannot be treated as though it were a connection to an electrode.

George: You counter with the water pipe example, in which we can connect a wire to a pipe inside a building. Your point is that, even though the connection is not in an area surrounded by dirt, the wire is a called a GEC, and the pipe is called an "electrode."

Bob: You counter by saying the concrete encased electrode and the water pipe are sufficiently different from each other to preclude using the one to demonstrate the viability of the other.

I also notice that there is some confusion regarding what to do with a concrete encased electrode that consists of 20 feet of encased rebar with some additional length of rebar sticking out of the concrete. The issue is what to call, and how to treat, the part of rebar sticking out of the concrete. Is it part of the electrode? Is it a GEC?

Before I give my opinion on the debate, can either of you or anyone else confirm or refute whether I have accurately summed up the essence of the disagreement?

charlie b · Dec 12, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Originally posted by georgestolz:

Originally posted by iwire:

250.52(A) (1) Metal Underground Water Pipe. A metal under-ground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0 m (10 ft) or more (including any metal well casing effectively bonded to the pipe) and electrically continuous (or made electrically continuous by bonding around insulating joints or insulating pipe) to the points of connection of the grounding electrode conductor and the bonding conductors.

Click to expand...

That tells us the water pipe grounding electrode is both in direct contact with the earth and electrically continuous to the point of connection.

Click to expand...

The "and" that you bolded means it must be underground and continuous. As in, it must be continuous underground.

George: I have to disagree with this statement, though I don't know yet know how important it is to your overall argument.

The word "continuous" is attached to "electrically," not to "underground." It must be electrically continuous, but it need not be continuously underground, except for the minimum distance of 10 feet.

charlie b · Dec 12, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

One more basic comment, before I offer my own opinion. We are allowed to connect to the water pipe within five feet of where it comes out of the dirt and into the house. The reason we are allow to connect within five feet has nothing to do with whether the connection is within dirt or within the basement. The reason for five feet is to prevent us from connecting within one hundred feet or more. The danger of connecting far away from the point at which the pipe enters the basement is that a plumber might disconnect the pipe without knowing that the pipe was used as an electrode. If the connection is close to the wall, within for example five feet of the wall, then the plumber is more likely to see the electrical connection. That might not mean anything to the plumber, but it is our duty to at least give the plumber a reasonable chance to spot our connection, before disconnecting any of the piping.

iwire · Dec 12, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

I asked Charlie to join in this thread.

OK here is where it started for me.

Originally posted by georgestolz:
If the #4 in question is the electrode, then run a GEC sized according to 250.66 to an accessible location and splice the electrode to the GEC using any reversible method.

This statement was made in regards to a concrete encased electrode.

My view is that statement is incorrect.

My opinion is that a the 4 AWG in question can not be a grounding electrode. A concrete encased electrode can not exist 'outside' of 2" of concrete encasement. The section of this conductor that is not in 2" of concrete is either a GEC or a bonding jumper.

The only code section that IMO is relevant to this question is 250.52(3).

While I was answering George's post it struck me that my view also means a rebar stubbed out is actually a violation as it is being used as a GEC which violates 250.62.

For me this is entirely a question of what 250.52(A)(3) states, not what may be commonly done.

Thanks for everyones time.

iwire · Dec 12, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Originally posted by charlie b:
Bob (iwire): I think you are saying that,


It would not matter if the construction had been done in the CASE 1 or the CASE 2 configuration, and



Once the conductor (i.e., #4 copper wire or rebar) had left the concrete, that portion that is outside the concrete is not part of the "electrode," so therefore,



Any connection outside the concrete cannot be treated as though it were a connection to an electrode.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

LarryFine · Dec 12, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Originally posted by iwire:
My opinion is that a the 4 AWG in question can not be a grounding electrode. A concrete encased electrode can not exist 'outside' of 2" of concrete encasement. The section of this conductor that is not in 2" of concrete is either a GEC or a bonding jumper.

While I was answering George's post it struck me that my view also means a rebar stubbed out is actually a violation as it is being used as a GEC which violates 250.62.

Would the same apply to a driven ground rod? Is the part sticking out of the dirt an electrode or a GEC?

I offer this question as rhetoric, not to start a side discussion, but to expand on the discussion at hand.

LarryFine · Dec 12, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Okay, another question, brought up by my fiance:

If the #4 in question cannot reach the panel unspliced, but it is long enough to reach a driven ground rod, would it be permissable to attach it to the rod with the proper acorn clamp, and then run another #4 from a second acorn clamp to the panel.

We added a new driven rod to an existing one today, and both she and our other man were suprised to learn that, as long as each wire has a separate clamp, the #6 does not have to run unbroken from panel to rod to rod. Does the same apply here?

pierre · Dec 12, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Larry
The truth finally comes out..."Okay, another question, brought up by my fiance:"
The brains behind the brawn

George Stolz · Dec 12, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Bob, good call. I don't believe there's anyone here with a cooler head than Charlie B, and I say that with absolutely no disrespect intended to any who've contributed (and will hopefully continue to contribute) to this thread.

Charlie, I believe you have summed up my side of the discussion. The "continuously underground" comment was indeed an error, I should have written "electrically continuous while underground".

I have drawn one picture, and then changed it to show my view perhaps a bit more clearly.

Here I have drawn a water pipe electrode entering the building from the left. This may be considered an overhead view.

There are three parts.

Part 1. The area under "Required Connection" is the portion of the electrode that we are required to bond to, per the definition detailed in the first sentence of 250.52(A)(1).

Part 2. The area under the "?" is not discussed in code. It is commonly perceived that we may connect our GEC in this location, but it is not expressly permitted.

Part 3. The area under "Mandatory: No Connection" is expressly forbidden for GEC connections, by the second sentence of 250.52(A)(1).

Here is a similar drawing of a Ufer. In the interests of getting a very similar picture to compare to, there is no real orientation (as in, not overhead view as above).

There are only two parts. This is because there is no location in a Ufer that is restricted by a mandatory statement, as compared to the water pipe.

Part 1: The area under "Required Connection" is the portion of the electrode defined in 250.52(A)(3).

Part 2: The area under the "?" is not addressed in the code. There is no express permission nor restriction in this area, it is akin to the similar area of a water pipe.

That is the core of my case. Since the code is a permissive document, and there is no language barring us from making a connection outside the defined area of the water pipe electrode, we are allowed to make that connection.

Since there is no language barring us from making a connection outside the defined area on a Ufer, we are allowed to make that connection.

LarryFine · Dec 12, 2005

Re: Ground Conductor Splicing

Originally posted by pierre:
Larry
The truth finally comes out..."Okay, another question, brought up by my fiance:"
The brains behind the brawn

I'll be the first to admit it! She's the biggest little lady I know. She's 5'2", and I'm 6'3". I refer to her as my "better third".

Ground Conductor Splicing

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Senior Member

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA

Senior Member

Moderator

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA