Ground Ring requirement for electrical room espansion

Status
Not open for further replies.
GoldDigger said:
That makes a lot of sense. But if there are two or more rod electrodes connected along the way, then the wire which would have been part of the ring becomes simply the GEC or bonding jumper(s) and still both can and must be connected as part of the GES. It just is not a ground ring and not subject to any of the special provisions applicable to ground rings.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
When I proposed a "grounding lateral" to be used as permitted grounding electrode, the panel comments made it very clear that the only buried conductor that can be used as a grounding electrode is one that completely encircles a building. A broken ring does not completely encircle the building.
Click to expand...
And that would be the case if this were installed incomplete. In this case it was installed complete and can be made complete again.
 
Smart $ said:
And that would be the case if this were installed incomplete. In this case it was installed complete and can be made complete again.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement to make it complete and make it a compliance grounding electrode. There is no requirement to have a ground ring. There are other electrodes that satisfy the requirement to have a grounding electrode. In fact the ground rods that are connected to the wire that was the ground ring would meet the code requirement for the grounding electrodes. Of course, if there are other existing grounding electrodes, you would be required to use them. The open loop that was the ground ring, is no longer a code compliant grounding electrode and it is not required to be returned to its former status as a code compliant ground ring.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
... The open loop that was the ground ring, is no longer a code compliant grounding electrode and it is not required to be returned to its former status as a code compliant ground ring.
Click to expand...
Says who? You are most certainly not presenting any compelling evidence or precedence. All you are presenting is conjecture.

IMO, breaking the ring of a compliant ground ring electrode is no different than disconnecting any electrode present.
 
roger said:
And what do you think I've been saying? In post #3 I said to connect a #4 to the new CEE and be done with it, this would simply mean connecting the new CEE to the existing GES which would include the remnants of the ring.

In post # 9 you said nothing needed to be connected to it

Roger
Click to expand...

Nothing is required to be attached to the ring. You can still use the remnants of the ring as a bonding jumper to connect the rods that are left there.
 
Smart $ said:
Says who? You are most certainly not presenting any compelling evidence or precedence. All you are presenting is conjecture.

IMO, breaking the ring of a compliant ground ring electrode is no different than disconnecting any electrode present.
Click to expand...

so you are saying the electrical code prohibits the removal of a water pipe as a GE?

so the water company can never change the underground metal pipe to plastic?
 
petersonra said:
so you are saying the electrical code prohibits the removal of a water pipe as a GE?

so the water company can never change the underground metal pipe to plastic?
Click to expand...
No, that is not what I'm saying.

In analogy I'm saying you cannot install a plastic fitting in an underground metal water pipe to make it not be an electrode after it already is an electrode.
 
Smart $ said:
...

IMO, breaking the ring of a compliant ground ring electrode is no different than disconnecting any electrode present.
Click to expand...
It is very much different. Disconnecting an electrode is not the same as removing an electrode. Breaking the ring is the same thing as removing a ground rod...in both cases the electrode no longer exists.
 
Smart $ said:
No, that is not what I'm saying.

In analogy I'm saying you cannot install a plastic fitting in an underground metal water pipe to make it not be an electrode after it already is an electrode.
Click to expand...
Where does the code say that? Of course you would have to do that outside before the water pipe enters the structure.
 
Smart $ said:
But it's not the same as removing a ground rod. It's the same as cutting off the top of a ground rod.
Click to expand...
Is there a requirement to replace that ground rod if the top were cut off, as long as the rod is truly an optional electrode?

If you move service to a new location and decide to drive new rod(s) at that new location do we either have to run a conductor to the old rod(s) or pull them? Is it against NEC to abandon them in place?

How about if old water pipe is abandoned in place? I can see this as becoming an optional rod or pipe electrode if it is no longer the water pipe, but see no requirement to use it anymore.
 
kwired said:
Is there a requirement to replace that ground rod if the top were cut off, as long as the rod is truly an optional electrode?
Click to expand...
No Code requirement... but may be viewed as illegal if you have no legitimate reason.

If you move service to a new location and decide to drive new rod(s) at that new location do we either have to run a conductor to the old rod(s) or pull them? Is it against NEC to abandon them in place?
Click to expand...
AFAICT, you'd have to connect or remove them. Code has no provision for abandoning in place.

How about if old water pipe is abandoned in place? I can see this as becoming an optional rod or pipe electrode if it is no longer the water pipe, but see no requirement to use it anymore.
Click to expand...
As you note, still a pipe electrode, and required to be connected.
 
Smart $ said:
No, that is not what I'm saying.

In analogy I'm saying you cannot install a plastic fitting in an underground metal water pipe to make it not be an electrode after it already is an electrode.
Click to expand...

This is a common practice. You are saying it is somehow in violation of the code?

If an electrode is no longer an electrode, it is just not an electrode anymore, regardless of what it may have once been.
 
petersonra said:
This is a common practice. You are saying it is somehow in violation of the code?

If an electrode is no longer an electrode, it is just not an electrode anymore, regardless of what it may have once been.
Click to expand...
I'm not contesting that a 'broken' electrode is not an electrode. What is being contested is the manner/legality in which it becomes broke.
 
Smart $ said:
But it's not the same as removing a ground rod. It's the same as cutting off the top of a ground rod.
Click to expand...
I don't see a difference. If you cut off the top of a ground rod so there in no longer 8' in contact with the earth, it is no longer a grounding electrode. Opening the ground ring has the same result...it is no longer a grounding electrode.
 
Triad Ground Rod Configuration

Triad Ground Rod Configuration

I have used the triangle or Triad config. as the isolated instrument ground system. This used to be quite common to bleed of EMI from the PLC isolated gnd. bar.
 
Smart $ said:
I'm not contesting that a 'broken' electrode is not an electrode. What is being contested is the manner/legality in which it becomes broke.
Click to expand...

Why would it ever be "illegal" to remove a GE as long as the resulting installation still met code? Are you suggesting that an existing ground rod that rusted through could not be replaced? That is absurd.

Incidentally, the code (250.52) refers to underground water pipes as a GE. If the water company abandons an underground pipe to replace it with plastic, I don't see how it is an underground water pipe anymore. it is just an underground pipe. Just any underground pipe is not a qualifying GE.

There is close to a zero chance that the abandoned (former) water pipe qualifies as a pipe type electrode. See the requirements for such electrodes in 250.53(G).
 
petersonra said:
...
There is close to a zero chance that the abandoned (former) water pipe qualifies as a pipe type electrode. See the requirements for such electrodes in 250.53(G).
Click to expand...
The abandoned water pipe may be an electrode under the provisions of 250.52(A)(8).

The provisions of 250.53(G) apply to a driven pipe that is used as a grounding electrode. This is used in the same manner as a driven ground rod. When I started a 10' length of 3/4" rigid conduit was used as the grounding electrode and was connected to a piece of 1/2" rigid conduit with a "wedge clamp". The 1/2" conduit extended to the meter can and was used as the grounding electrode conductor.
 
don_resqcapt19 said:
The abandoned water pipe may be an electrode under the provisions of 250.52(A)(8).

The provisions of 250.53(G) apply to a driven pipe that is used as a grounding electrode. This is used in the same manner as a driven ground rod. When I started a 10' length of 3/4" rigid conduit was used as the grounding electrode and was connected to a piece of 1/2" rigid conduit with a "wedge clamp". The 1/2" conduit extended to the meter can and was used as the grounding electrode conductor.
Click to expand...

calling an abandoned piece of pipe a "system" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top