ground electrode

Status
Not open for further replies.
charlie b said:
It is no such thing! It may be compliant, and it may not be compliant, and you do not know which of these it is. The words in the NEC, as written, do not support your statement.


That said, if you were to fail the installation, insisting on seeing either the test report or a second rod, I would understand your position. There is a difference between "not being compliant," and "not being able to prove compliance," even though, in a practical sense, they have the same result.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm saying that lack of proof is lack of compliance. I'm not saying the rod isn't within 25 ohms without proof, but put yourself in the inspector's shoes.

Suppose an inspector checks your service, and says "I see you've only installed one rod. How do we know your GES installation is compliant?"

What would you say?
 
I'm going to add my two cents.

I remember reading a report on ground rods with respect to how much gain

could be achievied with multi-rod setup. It went something like this.

Drove 1st rod, tested, got 50ohms
drove 2nd rod, tested, got 40ohms
3rd 39.8
4th 39.3
5th 38.9
So on and so on; conclusion, after two rods it was not worth driving more.
 
Actually it is if the specs call for a certain ohm readings. You would just have to change a few things, depth spacing, soil enhancement and a large quantity of rods

Sombodys signature line says I can build anything you want, if you can draw a picture of it on a blank check (or something like that) While the same thing applies here. Though we did some mountain sites were there was nothing to dive into. SOLID ROCK.
 
They wanted to drill the granite and sink an XIT. I said find but 3-point testing would be almost impossible but if you do let me know I want to at least look at it. Never heard back from them.
 
LarryFine said:
Suppose an inspector checks your service, and says "I see you've only installed one rod. How do we know your GES installation is compliant?" What would you say?
Click to expand...
Larry, I am splitting a hair over semantics. In answer to your hypothetical question, I would tell the inspector, ?I suppose you don?t know that the GES installation is compliant, and I infer that you are not going to sign off the job. May I ask you to come back in a couple hours, during which time I will get a second rod installed and connected??

My only point is that I haven?t gotten enough royalties lately for Charlie?s Rule, so I am going to mention it again. ;) :grin: The code says what it says, and it does not say that two rods are required, in order to attain compliance. Nor does it call upon the owner, the installer, or the inspector to be responsible for proving that a single rod has a low enough resistance.
 
iwire said:
I am at a loss, I have no idea why it would be the AHJs job to prove it does not meet the requirement.

The installer must use a rod that complies with the NEC, one of those requirements is to achieve 25 ohms on one rod or choose another way to comply.

In the real world it is up to the EC to prove the rod has 25 ohms or less. I also am one of the many that simply installs two rods and walks away.
Click to expand...
I am of the opinion that it is often best to save your resources for fighting battles that matter. I would concur it is better to just install the two rods and call it OK. Arguing over it will cost more than you will save not installing it.

However, I still do not see anywhere in the code that it says the installer is responsible to prove something is code. It is up to the inspector to show it is not code. It is like the argument over using tie wraps to secure conduit.

BTW, if you install a single ground rod to supplement a water line, would the combination of water line and ground rod have to meet 25 Ohms? Or the ground rod by itself? The way it is written it seems clear that its the rod by itself, not the combination.

And since the code never specifies just how such a reading would be taken, I don't see anyway you can enforce the ruling that it is two rods or a test.
 
roger said:
Why would you use 3/4 x 10, do you think it really makes a difference when you are only connecting a #6 to it?

Roger
Click to expand...

Surely the majority of the resistance of the circuit (and thus its effectivity) comes from the contact with earth not the minor resistance impposed by the #6 conductor. Seems to me then that more diametric surface area and that provided by the extra length could make a small difference.
 
charlie b said:

It is no such thing! It may be compliant, and it may not be compliant, and you do not know which of these it is. The words in the NEC, as written, do not support your statement.


That said, if you were to fail the installation, insisting on seeing either the test report or a second rod, I would understand your position. There is a difference between "not being compliant," and "not being able to prove compliance," even though, in a practical sense, they have the same result.
Click to expand...

That's why our office doesn't have "FAILED" stickers. . We have "APPROVED" and we have "NOT APPROVED". . To say something is "NOT APPROVED" is not the same as stated that it is not code compliant. . We may or may not know if you've failed the code requirements, but to be "APPROVED" means that we know you've complied. . With no approval, there's no occupancy permit.

Just like work concealed/covered without inspection, we don't know if you've complied, so you're "NOT APPROVED" [80.13(13)].

For those of you that think it is the inspectors responsibility to provide a failed 25 ohm test result, what happens to 250.56 in an area that has no inspections ? . Isn't the code still required even when noone is "looking over your shoulder" ?

If you yourself haven't tested the ohms, I would ask you, why are you calling this in for inspection when you don't know yet if it is compliant with the NEC ? . In the unenforceable section of the NEC, 80.13(15) says "Technical documentation shall be submitted to the" AHJ.

If we had questionable soil in our county, we would require the 25ohms to be proven. . But our soil is very clay based and we accept a single rod without a test. . As long as the policy is plainly stated and is the same for everybody, it's a level playing field.
 
dnem said:
......If we had questionable soil in our county, we would require the 25ohms to be proven. . But our soil is very clay based and we accept a single rod without a test. . As long as the policy is plainly stated and is the same for everybody, it's a level playing field.
Click to expand...

:grin: This coming from the same office that made up that sprinkler bonding rule ??? What up wit dat:grin: :roll:
 
petersonra said:
However, I still do not see anywhere in the code that it says the installer is responsible to prove something is code. It is up to the inspector to show it is not code.
Click to expand...

2 questions

1] Place yourself in county that does not have a building department and no inspections are done by the state. . Do you believe that 250.56 void ?

2] 250.56 does not state who should test but the supplemental/information 80.13(15) does state who is responsible for documentation. . Does 80.13(15) mean anything to you ?
 
M. D. said:
:grin: This coming from the same office that made up that sprinkler bonding rule ??? What up wit dat:grin: :roll:
Click to expand...

"made up that sprinkler bonding rule"
We didn't makeup any rule. . It's there in 250.104(B). . We just interpreted how we would apply likely to become energized. . We're determining how you apply actual existing words that are ambiguous.
 
If we had questionable soil in our county, we would require the 25ohms to be proven. . But our soil is very clay based and we accept a single rod without a test. . As long as the policy is plainly stated and is the same for everybody, it's a level playing field.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence that soil is consistent across a county unless you have performed 4-point test randomly across the same. You are passing code on an assumption and may as well pass a covered wall that was never inspected under the assumption that the EC always does good work.

IF NEC compliance is what you want.
 
dnem said:
If we had questionable soil in our county, we would require the 25ohms to be proven. . But our soil is very clay based and we accept a single rod without a test. . As long as the policy is plainly stated and is the same for everybody, it's a level playing field.
Click to expand...

When you say "policy" is that an adopted exception to the NEC rule or just a break-room agreement amongst inspectors?
 
petersonra said:
However, I still do not see anywhere in the code that it says the installer is responsible to prove something is code. It is up to the inspector to show it is not code. It is like the argument over using tie wraps to secure conduit.
Click to expand...

IBC 109.5 states in part that "...It shall be the duty of the permit holder to provide access to and means for inspections of such work that are required by this code."

IBC 2701.1 (as amended by the state of Utah) requires that "Electrical components, equipment and systems shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the provisions of the National Electrical Code". The unamended IBC references the ICC Electrical Code, which in turn, I understand, references the National Electrical Code.

Taking these two sections together, in order to comply with the IBC, the permit holder needs to provide means to a) determine that a single ground rod has a resistance of 25 ohms or less, or b) verify that a second rod has been driven.
 
Twoskinsoneman said:
Surely the majority of the resistance of the circuit (and thus its effectivity) comes from the contact with earth not the minor resistance impposed by the #6 conductor. Seems to me then that more diametric surface area and that provided by the extra length could make a small difference.
Click to expand...

And what do you think this achieves at our low voltages?

Roger
 
petersonra said:
However, I still do not see anywhere in the code that it says the installer is responsible to prove something is code.
Click to expand...

The code has nothing to do with how inspections are handled.

Nowhere in the NEC will you find anything saying 'Let the inspector look at the job before the walls get closed'. But rest assured I would be on the hook for allowing work to proceed without inspections.


It is up to the inspector to show it is not code.
Click to expand...

I simply do not agree with that, if that was true I could do a code compliant job and tell the sheetrocker to go ahead and rock as the inspector will have to prove I have a violation buried under the Sheetrock.

It just does not work that way.
 
dnem said:
"made up that sprinkler bonding rule"
We didn't makeup any rule. . It's there in 250.104(B). . We just interpreted how we would apply likely to become energized. . .
Click to expand...

Yeah well on this we disagree ,.. a pipe run with a junction box,.. likely to energize:-? .. that is a tremendous stretch.. as the word "likely" has a definition. But I don't want to be hijacking a thread so I'll leave it there for now ,..I'm sure we will chat more about this in the future :)
 
dnem said:
That's why our office doesn't have "FAILED" stickers. . We have "APPROVED" and we have "NOT APPROVED". . To say something is "NOT APPROVED" is not the same as stated that it is not code compliant. . We may or may not know if you've failed the code requirements, but to be "APPROVED" means that we know you've complied. . With no approval, there's no occupancy permit.

Just like work concealed/covered without inspection, we don't know if you've complied, so you're "NOT APPROVED" [80.13(13)].

For those of you that think it is the inspectors responsibility to provide a failed 25 ohm test result, what happens to 250.56 in an area that has no inspections ? . Isn't the code still required even when noone is "looking over your shoulder" ?

If you yourself haven't tested the ohms, I would ask you, why are you calling this in for inspection when you don't know yet if it is compliant with the NEC ? . In the unenforceable section of the NEC, 80.13(15) says "Technical documentation shall be submitted to the" AHJ.

If we had questionable soil in our county, we would require the 25ohms to be proven. . But our soil is very clay based and we accept a single rod without a test. . As long as the policy is plainly stated and is the same for everybody, it's a level playing field.
Click to expand...
is anything in article 80 enforcable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top