Interesting UFER

Status
Not open for further replies.
dwils1980

dwils1980

Member
Location
Fort Collins Colorado
Occupation
Master Electrician, Building Inspector
This was a new one for me, an attempt at a UFER electrode, this is a 20’ piece of 1/2” rebar bent into a square (approximately 6x4). I don’t feel like this meets the intent 250.52(A)(3) but I also have never seen a UFER installed this way…any thoughts on this?
5625602E-E028-4978-B278-66560493E43B.jpeg
 
The first issue I see is that you can't stub the rebar out of the dirt like that. It has to be protected from corrosion such as turning up out of concrete within a wall cavity.
 
Regardless of what they are trying to achieve the way it's connected to a removable panel would be reason to turn it down
 
If that is just a hole dug to contain the re-bar and concrete, and is NOT a footer or foundation, I don't believe I would accept it as a CEE.
I do understand the NEC doesn't define a footer or foundation. JMHO

Ron
 
roger said:
Regardless of what they are trying to achieve the way it's connected to a removable panel would be reason to turn it down
Click to expand...
It’s only connected to that removable panel by tie wire to prevent the rebar stub from rotating or folding over when concrete is poured
 
texie said:
The first issue I see is that you can't stub the rebar out of the dirt like that. It has to be protected from corrosion such as turning up out of concrete within a wall cavity.
Click to expand...
I agree, if this were to be an acceptable method for a UFER I would want to see the #4 CU attached to the encased rebar and stubbed out
 
rc/retired said:
If that is just a hole dug to contain the re-bar and concrete, and is NOT a footer or foundation, I don't believe I would accept it as a CEE.
I do understand the NEC doesn't define a footer or foundation. JMHO

Ron
Click to expand...
I'm afraid we may have a bunch of "4 Hatters" that think this is just fine although that gear in the background would seem to preclude a 4 hatter in this case from inspecting this in our state.
 
Neither Mr. Ufer's initial specification nor the NEC definition allow anything less than footing/foundation concrete.

A standalone lump of concrete just does not make it. The electrode shown will certainly perform poorly compared to a metal plate of the same size. Is the depth even great enough if it were a footing? A large enough freestanding slab at a significant depth may well be "good enough" in terms of resistance, but will not pass inspection.
Just how hard would it be to expose rebar in the poured footing? That could be code compliant if the rebar network meets the spec and thre is no membrane under the footing.
Often there will be an insulating/moisture barrier under the slab but not the footing.
 
I'd just say that's not an Ufer at all and just a really a ground bar, but not since it isn't made out of accepted materials, and not driven in the ground far enough and not really in acceptable soil anyway even if was a real ground bar.
 
rc/retired said:
If that is just a hole dug to contain the re-bar and concrete, and is NOT a footer or foundation, I don't believe I would accept it as a CEE.
I do understand the NEC doesn't define a footer or foundation. JMHO

Ron
Click to expand...
I think the rules in 250.52 are sloppy enough that you could make your own CCE separate from the building foundation and still be legal, but picture in the OP is a couple generations of thought and installation beyond that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top