Grounding electrode conductor continuous or not

[Motoarrow51]

I have always been taught that the GEC should not be spliced and should be continuous. I was recently told by an inspector to splice the GEC between ground rods. For example hit the first ground rod, cut the wire then run another wire from the first ground rod to the second. As I was taught that GEC should not be spliced at all. For example I always have had a continuous GEC from service to the first grounding electrode and continuous to the second grounding electrode. Is it ok to cut the wire and have it not continuous between the two grounding electrodes?

 

[tom baker]

The GEC does to the first GE (does not have to be a GR) To the next GR it’s a bonding jumper. You were taught wrong, but in your defense the code was confusing on this until recently. And the inspector is wrong. The GE does not have to be a GR.
Are you not using a ufer ground as required in the NEC for 20 years? No GR required with Ufer ground.

 

[LarryFine]

I have always been taught that the GEC should not be spliced and should be continuous. I was recently told by an inspector to splice the GEC between ground rods. For example hit the first ground rod, cut the wire then run another wire from the first ground rod to the second. As I was taught that GEC should not be spliced at all. For example I always have had a continuous GEC from service to the first grounding electrode and continuous to the second grounding electrode. Is it ok to cut the wire and have it not continuous between the two grounding electrodes?

Welcome to the forum.

Either way is code compliant. As Tom said, the GEC ends at the first electrode it hits, and from there, additional electrodes, such as your second rod, are connected with bonding jumpers.

The separate jumper is allowed, but not required. The main advantage of the unbroken conductor to the second rod, which is the method I usially use, is that you only need two acorn clamps.

 

[tom baker]

What it comes down is one wire and two clamps or two wires and three clamps.

 

[roger]

Here's an illustration showing a GEC and Jumper, as stated the GEC ends at the first electrode.

 

[Another C10]

It seems my practices are always based on the cumulative requirements of the many inspectors I've worked with, If I was written up for not having a continuous bond from rod to rod or rod to water then I make it policy, especially if I can't find or wish to spend time searching for an exception rule.

Example I looked up the continuous concept for this purpose, found something basing the electrode extension as a tap rule I believe.

Could be wrong but codes are very intricate and at times misleading, I found this which does seem to require the, continuous argument.

250.30 (4) ...............................................Key question, separately derived system .. separate bonding method ? second attachment point ? .. what
It goes on to mention, ..................... If outdoors the requirement below kicks in ..

250.30 (6) C below (3) .......................Tap conductor ? .. I suppose it could be classified as a tap. tapping onto the first ground rod to hit the other.
This is why I tend to simply listen to the inspectors, because sometimes proving them as incorrect simply isn't worth it, although I have managed
to win some arguments.


I always use a continuous grounding conductor when picking up more than 1 element to be bonded, never had a problem with over engineering.

 

[Another C10]

The main advantage of the unbroken conductor to the second rod, which is the method I usially use, is that you only need two acorn clamps.

All States are different, see in Calif. I would never pass with acorn clamps .. ( were exposed to elements ) these inspectors want metal sheathing on the earth grounding conductor, which then requires the shield support strap, built into the grounding clamp.

 

[electrofelon]

All States are different, see in Calif. I would never pass with acorn clamps .. ( were exposed to elements ) these inspectors want metal sheathing on the earth grounding conductor, which then requires the shield support strap, built into the grounding clamp.

Are those just things the inspector "Wants" or is that a written code amendment where you are? I understand we have to weigh the the energy and hassle of fighting with an inspector sometimes, but consider how bad it is for EVERYONE to not try to correct an inspector and thus have him make the same mistake over and over and cost everyone he comes across time and money.

 

[infinity]

I always use a continuous grounding conductor when picking up more than 1 element to be bonded, never had a problem with over engineering.

That's a good way to do it but just realize that it is not required by the NEC. A local amendment would be needed to make it enforceable.

 

[roger]

Another illustration showing multiple jumpers and one GEC.

 

[Another C10]

Are those just things the inspector "Wants" or is that a written code amendment where you are? I understand we have to weigh the the energy and hassle of fighting with an inspector sometimes, but consider how bad it is for EVERYONE to not try to correct an inspector and thus have him make the same mistake over and over and cost everyone he comes across time and money.

I agree with with you, sometimes an inspector seems to go over and beyond the NEC based on their own ethical preference. The concern that I come to understand and agree with in regards to a sheathed ground like Bare Armored Ground is solely for better protecting the exposed soft copper from potential damage. Now unsheathed electrode / bonding conductors in walls have no problem with using acorns, I see it all the time on ufers behind the inspection ring under a panel or even at water lines which are not subjected to damaging circumstances.

 

[Another C10]

That is a great illustration, If that's a sub panel ( so it seems) as you know that grounding electrode should go to the grounding buss, if it's the
service panel its good, although unless space was a concern there is no need for the separate ground bar below.

We meaning ( Calif ) need to have an uncut grounding conductor from the Neutral/Ground buss through a open lugged ground bushing upon exiting to our rods/ufer/water etc.

I think too in ( Calif ) I'd get written up on the ground rod relying on the structural steel. unless its intention was for lightning strikes.
If not for lightning, I'd probably have to bond the rod to the common reference used of the water pipe for better reliability.

 

[infinity]

I agree with with you, sometimes an inspector seems to go over and beyond the NEC based on their own ethical preference.

I find that it's often that they simply don't understand the code requirement when they are asking for things that aren't required, more so than their preference. And more often than not I hear that the GEC has to be continuous which is true but they need to know where the GEC ends and the bonding jumper begins. that's where the confusion comes in. I had a fellow electrician do a 200 amp dwelling service upgrade and the inspector made him run an unbroken GEC from the neutral bar to the water pipe then to two ground rods and then back to the panel neutral bar in a complete unbroken loop.

 

[roger]

That is a great illustration, If that's a sub panel ( so it seems) as you know that grounding electrode should go to the grounding buss, if it's the
service panel its good, although unless space was a concern there is no need for the separate ground bar below.

We meaning ( Calif ) need to have an uncut grounding conductor from the Neutral/Ground buss through a open lugged ground bushing upon exiting to our rods/ufer/water etc.

I think too in ( Calif ) I'd get written up on the ground rod relying on the structural steel. unless its intention was for lightning strikes.
If not for lightning, I'd probably have to bond the rod to the common reference used of the water pipe for better reliability.

Why would you think a GEC would go to a Sub Panel; what is shown is the service. The GEC is connected to the service neutral. You seem to be referring to an SDS as your NEC reference in post #6 indicates. The thread is about the service GEC, and although 250.30 has some similarities to 250.50 and 250.52 it is not the correct article section, the OP is talking about the service which is Part III of 250.

Here is Mike Holts version of the illustration.

 

[rc/retired]

I have always been taught that the GEC should not be spliced and should be continuous.

A GEC can be spliced per 250.64(C)

Ron

 

[electrofelon]

That is a great illustration, If that's a sub panel ( so it seems) as you know that grounding electrode should go to the grounding buss, if it's the
service panel its good, although unless space was a concern there is no need for the separate ground bar below.

We meaning ( Calif ) need to have an uncut grounding conductor from the Neutral/Ground buss through a open lugged ground bushing upon exiting to our rods/ufer/water etc.

I think too in ( Calif ) I'd get written up on the ground rod relying on the structural steel. unless its intention was for lightning strikes.
If not for lightning, I'd probably have to bond the rod to the common reference used of the water pipe for better reliability.

These sound kinda like shirt poket rules. Are they actually in california's electrical code?

 

[electrofelon]

I had a fellow electrician do a 200 amp dwelling service upgrade and the inspector made him run an unbroken GEC from the neutral bar to the water pipe then to two ground rods and then back to the panel neutral bar in a complete unbroken loop.

FWIW it is very common in upstate NY where I am to run an unbroken GEC loop through the two rods and back to the panel. I think this comes from NYSEG's spec book for meter pedestals where it is sort of a requirement (I think it actually says something like "typical" which is kinda vague as to whether it is a requirement or not IMO). I stopped doing that years ago and no one has said anything.

 

[Another C10]

Why would you think a GEC would go to a Sub Panel; what is shown is the service.

This is what I saw ... I don't see a meter. Why is there a secondary buss below ..?

 

[Another C10]

I had a fellow electrician do a 200 amp dwelling service upgrade and the inspector made him run an unbroken GEC from the neutral bar to the water pipe then to two ground rods and then back to the panel neutral bar in a complete unbroken loop.

It is better ... I do believe. less chance of connection movement.

 

[infinity]

This is what I saw ... I don't see a meter. Why is there a secondary buss below ..?

I can see the confusion with the extra EGC bus, the graphic does say "Service equipment" with an arrow pointed towards the panel.