The infamous and elusive UFER

[roger]

Unless it’s slab on grade with a vapor barrier, in which case it does not qualify anyway. Correct ? So, no chopping gun?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The slab is usually not the issue, it's the footer.

 

[infinity]

Unless it’s slab on grade with a vapor barrier, in which case it does not qualify anyway. Correct ? So, no chopping gun?

Yes of course. You would not be required to connect to the rebar if the rebar did not qualify as a CEE. Also depending on how it's constructed in general slabs do not qualify as CEE's.

 

[Npstewart]

Yes of course. You would not be required to connect to the rebar if the rebar did not qualify as a CEE. Also depending on how it's constructed in general slabs do not qualify as CEE's.

I guess the confusing part is if two ground rods + any other available source is code compliant, then why would someone chip up concrete to access the CCE? It simply isn’t available, and the structure is now “existing”. The words “new construction” do not appear in the code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roger]

I guess the confusing part is if two ground rods + any other available source is code compliant, then why would someone chip up concrete to access the CCE? It simply isn’t available, and the structure is now “existing”. The words “new construction” do not appear in the code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A lot of grounding requirements may be useless and ridiculous but that doesn't change what is written in 250.50. With as many houses being built the EC's and GC's should be well versed in proper building sequencing.

 

[roger]

The words “new construction” do not appear in the code.

However, 90.4 gives the inspector or AHJ the authority to interpret what "exisitng" means

 

[infinity]

I guess the confusing part is if two ground rods + any other available source is code compliant, then why would someone chip up concrete to access the CCE? It simply isn’t available, and the structure is now “existing”. The words “new construction” do not appear in the code.

Around here that "existing" argument doesn't hold water. If you forgot the CEE you will be installing one. Besides you won't even be pouring the footing because without the CEE you won't pass the footing form inspection. Building inspectors know to look for the CEE before allowing the concrete to be poured.

 

[rbalex]

What if it’s slab on grade with a vapor barrier?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

See Section 250.52(A)(3) IN.

I beg the pardon of those who have already pointed it out.

I happened to be at the CMP meeting when a concrete encased electrode effectively became the mandatory primary grounding electrode and a later meeting that permitted omitting chipping it out if it was an existing facility. (I had no authorization to contribute to the discussion) The fact is, at the time, the CMP intended to be punitive if new facilities did not recognize preparing the concrete encased electrode properly. I.e., if you didn’t install it so that it would be “available” in the first place, you will have a chipping issue.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

NC ha amended this requirement by using the logic that was mentioned earlier. Even in new construction NC decided that when the electrician get to the job the rebar is not available so it isn't a requirement.
I wish they would change that ruling however, my company has been installing the concrete-encased electrode for many years.

 

[Seven-Delta-FortyOne]

No where else in any Code, does exceptions for existing buildings apply to a contractor who forgot to follow a Code requirement.

Im not sure how you think this has gone off topic, but if you forgot to put it in, it needs to be done right. Mistakes are often times expensive, embarrassing, and annoying. Lord knows I’ve been there.

On the slab on grades that I build, the vapor barrier continues under the footing, and therefore a Ufer is not possible. So it’s not required.

In my area the Ufer is part of the form inspection: Setbacks, depth, dobies, rebar layout, Ufer, utilities pressure tests, wrapping of pipes, etc, is all inspected before we pour.

 

[hbiss]

The fact is, at the time, the CMP intended to be punitive if new facilities did not recognize preparing the concrete encased electrode properly. I.e., if you didn’t install it so that it would be “available” in the first place, you will have a chipping issue.

Ha! So, I was right.

-Hal

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I guess the confusing part is if two ground rods + any other available source is code compliant, then why would someone chip up concrete to access the CCE? It simply isn’t available, and the structure is now “existing”. The words “new construction” do not appear in the code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In my opinion, a new structure is not existing until after the occupancy permit is issued.

 

[infinity]

In my opinion, a new structure is not existing until after the occupancy permit is issued.

I agree, to say the footing is existing because someone messed up is a lengthy stretch of the word.

 

[Npstewart]

In my opinion, a new structure is not existing until after the occupancy permit is issued.

No where else in any Code, does exceptions for existing buildings apply to a contractor who forgot to follow a Code requirement.

Im not sure how you think this has gone off topic, but if you forgot to put it in, it needs to be done right. Mistakes are often times expensive, embarrassing, and annoying. Lord knows I’ve been there.

On the slab on grades that I build, the vapor barrier continues under the footing, and therefore a Ufer is not possible. So it’s not required.

In my area the Ufer is part of the form inspection: Setbacks, depth, dobies, rebar layout, Ufer, utilities pressure tests, wrapping of pipes, etc, is all inspected before we pour.

I always generally have the attitude where if something was done incorrectly then there should be re-done. However, it seems as though this is more of a regional requirement. If I had to guess, the UFER is likely missed on ~30%+ of both commercial and residential installations.

I’m from SW Florida and even though most of our population comes from a Northern climate, our trades people are generally low-skilled laborers that take no pride in their work, and many times work for those that have no business operating a business. Then, nobody coordinates anything.

I think the big issue in my area is there’s no inspection


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Npstewart]

I agree, to say the footing is existing because someone messed up is a lengthy stretch of the word.

The code says all sources available and if it’s not available then not sure what the issue is.

If it were that important then I doubt the code would exempt existing structures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The code says all sources available and if it’s not available then not sure what the issue is.

If it were that important then I doubt the code would exempt existing structures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Note that the last code cycle that used the term "available" in section 250.50 was the 2002 code. In the 2005 code that word was replaced with "present" to address the very issue being discussed in this thread.

 

[roger]

If it were that important then I doubt the code would exempt existing structures.

Think of it like a 1960 Falcon, modern day safety devices aren't present and don't need to be added.

 

[jaggedben]

Let's remember that the NEC isn't the code that requires a CEE in the first place. The code that requires the installation of a CEE will be some other code, either one that indirectly requires it (by requiring x amount of rebar in a footing) or ordinances that expressly require a CEE if you are pouring a certain amount of footing or some such, (which, it seeme to me, could require you to omit a vapor barrier in enough area to qualify the CEE). Particularly in the latter case, if you have a construction project where a non-NEC code requires you to install a CEE and connect it to the electrical system, nothing the NEC says can ever be sufficient to get you out of that.

 

[Elect117]

From the NEC 2020 handbook regarding the 250.50 exception, "Because the installation of the footings and foundation is one of the first elements of a construction project, one that in most cases has long been completed by the time the electric service is installed, compliance with 250.50 requires an awareness and coordinated effort on the part of designers and the construction trades to make sure that the concrete-encased electrode is incorporated into the grounding electrode system. The exception to 250.50 provides a practical solution where modifications are made to an electrical system in an existing building that necessitates connection to the building grounding electrode system."

You can't use the exception due to poor planning and poor execution of work.

 

[Npstewart]

From the NEC 2020 handbook regarding the 250.50 exception, "Because the installation of the footings and foundation is one of the first elements of a construction project, one that in most cases has long been completed by the time the electric service is installed, compliance with 250.50 requires an awareness and coordinated effort on the part of designers and the construction trades to make sure that the concrete-encased electrode is incorporated into the grounding electrode system. The exception to 250.50 provides a practical solution where modifications are made to an electrical system in an existing building that necessitates connection to the building grounding electrode system."

You can't use the exception due to poor planning and poor execution of work.

This is why I mentioned earlier that this was getting off topic.

I’m not the electrician and I didn’t miss an inspection. Furthermore, the responses were geared mostly towards the fact that someone else missed an inspection and they should be punished, despite me not mentioning the circumstances, and additionally I mentioned multiple times there was a vapor barrier for slab on grade, which extended under the footers.

This place is starting to remind me more and more of Facebook vs. the forum I joined in 2008.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jaggedben]

This is why I mentioned earlier that this was getting off topic.

I’m not the electrician and I didn’t miss an inspection. Furthermore, the responses were geared mostly towards the fact that someone else missed an inspection and they should be punished, despite me not mentioning the circumstances, and additionally I mentioned multiple times there was a vapor barrier for slab on grade, which extended under the footers.

This place is starting to remind me more and more of Facebook vs. the forum I joined in 2008.

Sorry, what's off topic? We haven't said anything about your personal responsibility for any of this. We have explained how an AHJ can be on solid legal ground in requiring that a CEE be connected on new construction. Even if they have been lenient beforehand. That is completely on topic to what your original post seemed to be about.

I don't believe you were clear before now that the particular project has a vapor barrier (as opposed to that being a hypothetical). If the vapor barrier disqualifies the CEE then it comes down to whether you were required to install a CEE in the first place. You might have an argument if the AHJ allowed the vapor barrier but does not have an ordinance explicitly requiring the CEE when you pour a footer.