ufer ground question

[robertwilber]

hi
I am part of a discussion on contractortalk.com and there is a discussion about ufer grounding at this thread:
http://www.contractortalk.com/showthread.php?t=15695
any input would be welcomed

hey, MIKE .... hint, hint

 

[ibew441dc]

post the question here , I'm sure you will get some good feedback

ibew441dc

 

[iwire]

Robert I am here in MA, they have told us point blank that the uffer will be installed even if that means a new footer gets ripped up to get it done.

The GCs will now have to have an electrician install the uffer and have it inspected.

Other states will vary in how they handle this.

 

[Davis9]

Robert I am here in MA, they have told us point blank that the uffer will be installed even if that means a new footer gets ripped up to get it done.

The GCs will now have to have an electrician install the uffer and have it inspected.

Other states will vary in how they handle this.

I thought that it only had to be used if rebar was being used? The handout from the state says something to that effect. If you didn't attach(if being used) then I have heard the same as well. I made some good friends with Foundation contractors over the last 2 years.

Tom

 

[JohnJ0906]

Most jurisdictions that I know of here in MD require the ufer, and have since either '96 or '99 code cycle. (for new construction, I should add) The attitude is that by now there is no excuse for missing it. You miss it, you won't enjoy adding it. The building inspector includes it as part of the footer inspection, I beleive.

 

[George Stolz]

You know, this grounding stuff is not just some silly game we play, it's very important in every electrical system(even an ungrounded one), you really ought to know it.

Mmm...fresh meat.

Robert, the 2005 code 250.50 did indeed change to mandate the use of the concrete encased electrode in all new construction, when it is present. If you do a search of this forum, you will find ROP's and ROC's to show the discussions leading up to the change in the code text.

Note that if a CEE is not present in the building's design, the code text does not require you to add one, but if one exists when you wire that new structure, you're gonna get the pleasure of connecting to it after the concrete has set, unless the AHJ is exceedingly lenient.

BTW, Mike Holt does not often post here, so don't get your hopes up too high.

 

[Paul B]

I'm also in MD and have never been questioned about having or not having it. Most of my work is in AA county where the inspectors are tough if you are from out of county (very clanish). I have never been asked to install one for a building contractor.

 

[JohnJ0906]

Usually, the builder installs the uffer. I was talking to one today, and he mentioned 2 jurisdictions that it is part of the footer inspection-no uffer, no pour. Now, this is a home builder, so I can't be sure this holds true for commercial.

 

[JohnE]

I thought that it only had to be used if rebar was being used? The handout from the state says something to that effect. If you didn't attach(if being used) then I have heard the same as well. I made some good friends with Foundation contractors over the last 2 years.

Tom

That is correct. But you will have rebar in every commercial foundation. Seeing it in a lot of resi foundations as well.

There is one area building inspector who has gotten himself so confused, that he requires rebar in all residential footings now. This came about when the '05 NEC went into effect.

 

[al hildenbrand]

Mmm...fresh meat.

ROTFLMAO

Oh, have mercy, George.

 

[robertwilber]

Mmm...fresh meat.

Robert, the 2005 code 250.50 did indeed change to mandate the use of the concrete encased electrode in all new construction, when it is present. If you do a search of this forum, you will find ROP's and ROC's to show the discussions leading up to the change in the code text.

Note that if a CEE is not present in the building's design, the code text does not require you to add one, but if one exists when you wire that new structure, you're gonna get the pleasure of connecting to it after the concrete has set, unless the AHJ is exceedingly lenient.

BTW, Mike Holt does not often post here, so don't get your hopes up too high.

there you go George. ... "when it is present" - there is the rub ... that is my point exactly. we're not talking about "missing" anything here
did anyone read the referenced forum before rendering their observation?
and, oh yeah, I did a search of the forum. nothing came up. and I do GOOD searches
Did I mention I am also a licensed inspector?
Sparky Joe is the party suggesting the ufer is mandatory ... no matter what.

 

[iwire]

Sparky Joe is the party suggesting the ufer is mandatory ... no matter what.

I did read the forum.

And here is the deal where I am.

If the foundation of a new building has rebar in it I must connect to it.

The fact that a GC may not have hired an electrician before the pour will not matter.

If there is steel in a new foundation I will have to break into the foundation and bond the steel.

If no rebar is planed they do not have to install it.

 

[George Stolz]

did anyone read the referenced forum before rendering their observation?

Yes, I read it. I even quoted a guy.

and, oh yeah, I did a search of the forum. nothing came up. and I do GOOD searches

I'm sorry, I thought it had come up before, here is the ROC that provoked the change:

5-81 Log #1365 NEC-P05

Final Action: Accept in Principle​

( ​

250.50 Exception )​

________________________________________________________________

​

Submitter: ​

Andre R. Cartal, Princeton Borough Building Dept.​

Comment on Proposal No: ​

5-115​

Recommendation: ​

The Panel should accept this proposal with the following Exception:​

Exception: Concrete-encased electrodes in footings of existing buildings shall not be required to be part of the grounding electrode system.​

Substantiation: ​

The words “if available” has prevented the use of a proven grounding electrode for too many years. These words have no place in the NEC. From the inspector's viewpoint, it presents a no-win enforcement problem.​

The removal of these words will require electrical design professionals to specify and also enforce compliance with 250.50.
​

Panel Meeting Action: Accept in Principle​

Revise 250.50 to read as follows:

“250.50 Grounding Electrode System.
All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(6) that are present at each building or structure served shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. Where none of these grounding electrodes exist, one or more of the grounding electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(7) shall be installed and used.
Exception: Concrete-encased electrodes of existing buildings or structures shall not be required to be part of the grounding electrode system where the steel reinforcing bars or rods are not accessible for use without disturbing the concrete.”​

Panel Statement: ​

Implementation of requirements proposed in 5-115 is not feasible for all installations. An exception is needed to prevent situations where concrete would be required to be disturbed. Additional editorial changes were made to improve clarity.​

Number Eligible to Vote: ​

16​

Ballot Results: ​

Affirmative: 16​

Comment on Affirmative:​

ROBERTSON: I am voting in the affirmative, however, I would like to make a comment on this one.

I agree with the substantiation that the words “if available” have prevented the use of a proven electrode for too many years. By removing the words “if available” and replacing with the proposed text will now mean the Authority Having Jurisdiction will need to be aware of the sequence of construction and the reality that in a lot of cases the concrete encased electrode is, in fact, not available by the time the decision is made on which electrical contractor will be doing the project.

It will now become the responsibility of the Authority Having Jurisdiction to make sure these electrodes are made available for use prior to the concrete being poured in the foundations. On far too many projects the foundations, spread beams, piers and grade beams are poured prior to awarding the electrical work on a project. This concern should not be a factor in making the change, it will however, require some changes in the timing of when electrical contracts are awarded in some areas. Electrical contractors will need to keep this in mind when accepting projects.​

​

Edit to clean up formatting
​

 

[George Stolz]

Did I mention I am also a licensed inspector?

We have many inspectors here, I'm sure you will make a welcome addition to this forum. Just cheer up a little.

Sparky Joe is the party suggesting the ufer is mandatory ... no matter what.

That would be incorrect, as I mentioned before. It is only required to be used if it is part of the inherent design of the foundation. We're not required to add one if one does not already exist.

We're also permitted to add one if it's not present and we'd like to have one anyway, hence the alternate method provided, the #4.

 

[robertwilber]

here is the ROC that provoked the change:

Sorry ... I don't see much difference in the new wording that differs from "if available"
in fact, the proposed exception sounds like it would eliminate ufer grounds as mandatory
... and anyway, all I ever said was that if there is no rebar, you don't have a ufer, as I didn't feel, based on my reading, that the wire sheet they use in slab pours constituted ufer grid material
... and referenced a government paper about Ufer, and observed that they said the bond to the Ufer ground should NOT be in the concrete if it was composed of a copper/iron junction

 

[mdshunk]

Robert... I'm not too far away from you. Where I operate, if the Ufer provisions were "forgotten" during the foundation work (and the EC was not involved with the job yet) then concrete encased electrode is no longer present for connection, because it is covered in so much concrete. Thus, no connection is required.

For an inspection agency to cause an EC to jackhammer up foundation work to access the rebar is a flat admission that they failed to enforce this connection (or provisions for this connection) during the footer inspection or rebar inspection.

 

[tom baker]

One other point to confirm the required use of a CEE:
There is an exception for existing buildings.
So if not required for existing, it is for new.
Oregon has had a CEE requirement since 1994, if you forget thats what a jackhammer is for.
However in Washington state, our chief AHJ states that if you are installing electrical in a new building, and the foundation is already done, then its existing and no CEE is required. Example is you may of bid electrical after shell is up.

 

[George Stolz]

Sorry ... I don't see much difference in the new wording that differs from "if available"
in fact, the proposed exception sounds like it would eliminate ufer grounds as mandatory

You can choose to believe that if you wish, I have shown you the ROC that shows the intent to the contrary. I think it's fairly clear the CMP intended to relieve old existing structures from jackhammering in remodel situations, and did not offer the exception as an out in new work, in case the contractor didn't care before the concrete was poured.

An AHJ can elect to not enforce a section of the NEC, or elect to enforce it differently. I only take issue with what appears to be your denying their evident intent in changing the section. Did you read Robertson's statement at the end of the ROC I posted?

... and anyway, all I ever said was that if there is no rebar, you don't have a ufer, as I didn't feel, based on my reading, that the wire sheet they use in slab pours constituted ufer grid material

I didn't see where anyone said that besides you, in this thread or the other.

From the other thread:

they don't use rebar in small housing foundation pours and I don't believe that the 8-gauge sheet screen used in some floor pours constitutes a Ufer grid

and no, chicken wire is not required

Around here, they do use rebar on all foundation and basement wall pours I've seen.

... and referenced a government paper about Ufer, and observed that they said the bond to the Ufer ground should NOT be in the concrete if it was composed of a copper/iron junction

There are listed clamps for concrete encasement for copper conductor termination and attachment to rebar made by several manufacturers. Off the top of my head I know NSI makes one. They look a lot like water pipe clamps, but they're a touch different for rebar use.

Was this paper discussing direct copper connection to rebar, via cadwelding or something?

 

[robertwilber]

You can choose to believe that if you wish, I have shown you the ROC that shows the intent to the contrary. I think it's fairly clear the CMP intended to relieve old existing structures from jackhammering in remodel situations, and did not offer the exception as an out in new work, in case the contractor didn't care before the concrete was poured.

Once again, it doesn't matter what the intent was ...
that is the reason for constant changes.
The way it READS is what matters
What it SAYS is that if there IS a CEE, then it must be connected, NOT that there MUST be a CEE

An AHJ can elect to not enforce a section of the NEC, or elect to enforce it differently. I only take issue with what appears to be your denying their evident intent in changing the section. Did you read Robertson's statement at the end of the ROC I posted?


I didn't see where anyone said that besides you, in this thread or the other.

... and that's right. NOBODY but me said it. It was MY question.
And I came here to post an inquiry because there are numerous opinionated know-littles who go blowing off their ideas as "facts".

Around here, they do use rebar on all foundation and basement wall pours I've seen.

Around here, they don't

There are listed clamps for concrete encasement for copper conductor termination and attachment to rebar made by several manufacturers. Off the top of my head I know NSI makes one. They look a lot like water pipe clamps, but they're a touch different for rebar use.

Was this paper discussing direct copper connection to rebar, via cadwelding or something?

The paper discussed direct copper/rebar connection using clamps.

I suppose I will have to figure out how to phrase this and submit it so that I can get a Formal Interpretation.

 

[George Stolz]

Well, if your current read on the code is correct, then I guess we'll still have to keep pounding ground rods whether we've used the CEE as required or not, since it is no longer "present" after the concrete pour.

I suppose I will have to figure out how to phrase this and submit it so that I can get a Formal Interpretation.

Keep us posted.