The infamous and elusive UFER

[roger]

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

Besides the OP most of us know you are a designer which is why we (or at least me) don't understand you writing letters to get EC's and GC's off the hook for not adhering to code requirements that have been in place for two decades.

I understand the AHJ insisting on it being connected to the GES and actually back him. I would bet this isn't the first time the parties involved have pulled this.

They should bite the bullet and chalk it up as an education.

 

[hillbilly1]

It’s been done in commercial at least since the 80’s, probably a lot earlier than that. I even done it at my house in the early 90’s. Walmart done it at every transformer and service on their new stores for at least that long. Residential is just catching up.

 

[Npstewart]

Besides the OP most of us know you are a designer which is why we (or at least me) don't understand you writing letters to get EC's and GC's off the hook for not adhering to code requirements that have been in place for two decades.

I understand the AHJ insisting on it being connected to the GES and actually back him. I would bet this isn't the first time the parties involved have pulled this.

They should bite the bullet and chalk it up as an education.

I haven’t updated my profile in 15 years. Also, somehow made it to post #13 prior to a code citation being mentioned.

I spoke with the building official and he agreed. Half of his inspectors were fine with 2 rods and the other half weren’t. Not sure why this 1 house this 1 time was an issue, but it was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[roger]

I spoke with the building official and he agreed. Half of his inspectors were fine with 2 rods and the other half weren’t. Not sure why this 1 house this 1 time was an issue, but it was.

Maybe the second half know the code.

If the other EC's are trying to do compliant installations and competing with the low life corner cutters it's a little unfair.

Now I admit that's getting off topic, sorry.

 

[kwired]

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.

Exactly, we have had this requirement with the new wording almost 20 years now, and people still can't get it right at times. The intent in 2005 was to make people use a CEE particularly in new installations. Before then the wording made it so that it almost always wasn't "available" by the time the electricians showed up on site and CEES were not used very often at all, even though they are one the better electrodes available for us to use.

The intent with the wording for when the CEE isn't readily available and allowance to not use it was only intended to apply to existing structures where there is no footing being constructed as part of any work being done.

 

[tom baker]

Ufer has been in NEC for many years, WA AHJ requires exposing rebar to connect if connection not made

I have seen the rebar exposed on a chemical bulding that had engineered rebar placements and drawings, so the amount and interconnection could be verified. But if the electrician is a slow learner and misses the connection (note ufer must qualify) then this is the option. Note ground rods can be used but a documented resistance test is requred

 

[Bill Snyder]

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

I enjoyed the discussion we got lucky when this happened to us and we were able to "share" the CEE where we had 2 stubbed out for one multi-family structure and one was cut. It only cost us some extra #4 bare wire.

 

[retirede]

I haven’t updated my profile in 15 years. Also, somehow made it to post #13 prior to a code citation being mentioned.

I spoke with the building official and he agreed. Half of his inspectors were fine with 2 rods and the other half weren’t. Not sure why this 1 house this 1 time was an issue, but it was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That’s like saying “I’ve always driven 80 MPH on this 55
MPH highway and they gave me a speeding ticket just this one time.”

 

[GoldDigger]

The consensus in earlier threads on this topic seems to be that there is nothing in the NEC itself that prohibits putting a vapor barrier under the footings of a building or using rebar with an insulating coating. In both of these cases no CEE exists. Since no CEE exists, there is no NEC requirement to connect to it.

But if the required length of electrically continuous rebar of the right size exists in a footer which is in soil contact then a CEE exists. The connection out of the slab to allow connection to the GES is NOT part of the CEE. It is just necessary to connect that existing CEE to the GES. The non-existence of a CEE is not a condition that can be corrected. The inability to connect to it can be corrected, even though it might be expensive.

In the case that the OP eventually explained in detail, where there is, for whatever reason, a vapor barrier under the footer which completely insulates the footer from electrical contact with the substrate, there is no CEE and no requirement in the NEC to construct one.

I don't think it is likely that any other building code requires the initial construction of a CEE, even in new buildings, but I cannot rule it out.

 

[kwired]

I haven’t updated my profile in 15 years. Also, somehow made it to post #13 prior to a code citation being mentioned.

I spoke with the building official and he agreed. Half of his inspectors were fine with 2 rods and the other half weren’t. Not sure why this 1 house this 1 time was an issue, but it was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Code says what it says. Not everyone agrees it should say what it says, I might be one of those myself, but if I were an inspector I'd still enforce what it says regardless what I feel it should say. Same goes for some other areas in the code.

 

[hillbilly1]

I have no problem with inspectors that enforce the code, it’s the ones that make up their own code because of their own beliefs.

 

[kwired]

I have no problem with inspectors that enforce the code, it’s the ones that make up their own code because of their own beliefs.

Same here. Whether you agree with the rules or not it is hard to know what you can and can't do even though you have your own rule book with those that make up their own code. Having to hassle with going over their head is ... just a hassle and is no reason I should have to do so if they are making up their own rules.

 

[jaggedben]

...

I don't think it is likely that any other building code requires the initial construction of a CEE, even in new buildings, but I cannot rule it out.

It may be a local ammendment. San Francisco has added the following to 250.50. "A concrete encased electrode as defined by 250.52(A)(3) shall be installed at each new building or structure, and for existing buildings or structures when a new or replacement foundation or footing with a perimeter length of 6.0 m (20 ft.) or more is installed in direct contact with the earth."

Chapter 2. Wiring and Protection

Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes of ordinances in print and on the Internet

codelibrary.amlegal.com

 

[zbang]

For a place that gets as much lightning as it does (almost none), I wonder why SF did that.

 

[jaggedben]

To my understanding, because:
a) none of the original housing stock had ufers
b) the Sunset District is built on sand dunes and was considered to have very poor earth contact for rods
c) for a long time they had an earth worshipping electrical 'guru' in DBI.

 

[zbang]

I think 'c' is the correct answer .

 

[GoldDigger]

It may be a local ammendment. San Francisco has added the following to 250.50. "A concrete encased electrode as defined by 250.52(A)(3) shall be installed at each new building or structure, and for existing buildings or structures when a new or replacement foundation or footing with a perimeter length of 6.0 m (20 ft.) or more is installed in direct contact with the earth."

Chapter 2. Wiring and Protection

Legal publisher offering ordinance codification services for local governments, specializing in providing codes of ordinances in print and on the Internet

codelibrary.amlegal.com

Note that even this local amendment does not require the creation of a CEE where the design calls for a membrane between the foundation/footing and the substrate. It does not matter one way or the other is a membrane is installed only under the slab portion of the foundation.

It also relies on the unmodified text of the NEC to require that the CEE, once created, be connected to the GES.

What it does require is that short rebar segments be bonded if necessary to create a CEE when there is direct earth contact. And that a suitable length of copper wire or uncoated rebar be installed if coated rebar is specified for the job.

 

[kwired]

Note that even this local amendment does not require the creation of a CEE where the design calls for a membrane between the foundation/footing and the substrate. It does not matter one way or the other is a membrane is installed only under the slab portion of the foundation.

It also relies on the unmodified text of the NEC to require that the CEE, once created, be connected to the GES.

What it does require is that short rebar segments be bonded if necessary to create a CEE when there is direct earth contact. And that a suitable length of copper wire or uncoated rebar be installed if coated rebar is specified for the job.

I did not look at wording before posting but I don't believe it requires you to make any non qualifying footer into a qualifying footer.

You can have shorter segments bonded together to make minimum required length of rebar, and can rely on the conventional wire ties to accomplish this. If coated rebar is used you have no qualifying electrode. Is permitted to add what is needed, if desired, to create a qualifying electrode, including simply embedding a #4 bare copper wire at least 20 feet in length to create said electrode.

 

[infinity]

In the NEC a CEE is only required when there is 20' or more of 1/2" uncoated rebar in the footing with no vapor barrier under the footing.

 

[kwired]

In the NEC a CEE is only required when there is 20' or more of 1/2" uncoated rebar in the footing with no vapor barrier under the footing.

Short version of what I said, thanks.