upgrading service

[iwire]

but the detail is still incorrect. Please refer to [250.52(A)(3)] and the CEE minimum conductor is not smaller than a #4 AWG x 20ft. conductor.

The images are correct.

There is no requirement that 4 AWG be run continuously from the footing to the panel.

With a typical 100 amp service I could run just 8 AWG copper GEC from the panel to the 20' of rebar or 4 AWG located in the footing.

The only requirement with 4 AWG is if you choose to create a concrete encased electrode out of 'wire' that it will be at least 20' of 4 AWG encased in concrete.

 

[infinity]

Rob,

Sure the generic illustration does not mention GEC sizes, but the illustration presents the non-continuous conductor detail that will mislead many readers into thinking that residential Grounding Electrode Systems can be wired in this configuration.

I hope you can see what I have stated earlier as the detail is not per per the 2008 NEC 250 Articles mentioned. rbj

rbj,
Read back through the many posts of this thread. The information is there. The graphic is accurate and code compliant in both the 2005 and 2008 NEC.

 

[gndrod]

The images are correct.

There is no requirement that 4 AWG be run continuously from the footing to the panel.

With a typical 100 amp service I could run just 8 AWG copper GEC from the panel to the 20' of rebar or 4 AWG located in the footing.

The only requirement with 4 AWG is if you choose to create a concrete encased electrode out of 'wire' that it will be at least 20' of 4 AWG encased in concrete.

Bob, Let me rephrase my last statement to not include any mention of GEC AWG sizes. It is irrelevant to the incorrect clamping details shown from the CEE to the water pipe.

May I quote what you have just said..."With a typical 100 amp service I could run just 8 AWG copper GEC from the 'panel' to the 20' of rebar or 4 AWG located in the footing."

You may have agreed without agreeing with me in that statement alone. Thanks. rbj

 

[gndrod]

Awg

Awg

Rob,

The clamp details are incorrect, for that reason I have cited "continuous" as the reason for running the GEC to the panel from the CEE and I must ask if you would run a splice conductor from the CEE in a residential system. That would get red-tagged on the West coast. rbj

 

[iwire]

Bob, Let me rephrase my last statement to not include any mention of GEC AWG sizes. It is irrelevant to the incorrect clamping details shown from the CEE to the water pipe.

rbj, there is no violation in the clamping details shown from the CEE to the water pipe.

Picture this, I am contracted to wire a new small home, they tell me there will be a plastic water main and there will be no re-bar in the footing.

Being the fan of CEE (Concrete Encased Electrodes) I decide I will make a CEE. So I place 20' of 4 AWG copper in the footing.

I have now created a CEE per 250.52(A)(3).

Now I have to decide how to connect that CEE to the panel, I could as you suggested run one continuous piece of copper that makes up the CEE and runs all the way to the panel serving as the GEC for the CEE.

OR

I could be cheap and run just 20' of copper in the footing that would be the start and end of the CEE. Now I can use a connector listed for concrete encasement splice on some 8 AWG and run that to the panel as the GEC.

That would satisfy 250.64(C) as the entire GEC is continuous from the panel to the CEE.

But .....

Now plans change and they go with a metal water main that qualifies as an electrode and of course I have to use it. My lucky day, my 8 AWG from the CEE pass right by the water main entrance so I cut into it and use two grounding clamps on the water pipe.

Now the 8 AWG from the water line to the CEE is a bonding jumper per 250.53(C) and no longer has to comply with 250.64(C). The 8 AWG from the water line to the panel is now the GEC and would have to comply with 250.64(C)

 

[roger]

Please also note that the "Bonding jumper" detail connects to the H20 pipe that does not show a permanent exothermic or irreversible bond connecting device.

It doesn't have to it's not required.

The detail is non-compliant to [250.64(C)] that stipulates one continuous length without a splice or JOINT except as permitted in (1) and (2) of the same paragraph.

Where do you see a splice?

many readers into thinking that residential Grounding Electrode Systems can be wired in this configuration.

That's because it can, it is per the wording of 250.50

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.

I hope you can see what I have stated earlier as the detail is not per per the 2008 NEC 250 Articles mentioned. rbj

Did you notice the illustration from the 2008 NECH posted earlier?

Roger

 

[iwire]

The clamp details are incorrect, for that reason I have cited "continuous" as the reason for running the GEC to the panel from the CEE

A GEC must be continuous from the GES to the panel. (or irreversible)

A bonding jumper does not have to be continuous.

A CEE does not have to be continuous.

 

[gndrod]

It doesn't have to it's not required.

Where do you see a splice?

That's because it can, it is per the wording of 250.50

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.



Did you notice the illustration from the 2008 NECH posted earlier?

Roger

The hand book illustrations do not override the NEC statements.

[250.50] is referring to bonding as a grounding system and "together" does not specify how it is done until the pertaining Articles are referred to specific regulations. rbj

 

[iwire]

The hand book illustrations do not override the NEC statements.

None of us have said the handbook overrides the NEC.

We have all said that the NEC allows what the images show.

The image I posted is from the 2002 NECH, I think Robs might be one of Mike Hs and Rogers is from the 2008 NECH. Is it you belief that all the people involved in those three sources have not properly interpreted the words in the NEC?

 

[gndrod]

A GEC must be continuous from the GES to the panel. (or irreversible)

A bonding jumper does not have to be continuous.

A CEE does not have to be continuous.

Bob,
Maybe I am not describing the context of my messages in the best way to match an incorrect detail. I did not disagree with these three statements. Where did you get that impression? The detail shown is a clamp and not an irreversible connection.

Roger, Is the CEE a supplemental electrode? If so, please quote from NEC.

 

[gndrod]

None of us have said the handbook overrides the NEC.

We have all said that the NEC allows what the images show.

The image I posted is from the 2002 NECH, I think Robs might be one of Mike Hs and Rogers is from the 2008 NECH. Is it you belief that all the people involved in those three sources have not properly interpreted the words in the NEC?

Bob, It is the detail that is incorrect. Talk with the illustrator who probably never wired a house in his/her life. rbj

 

[roger]

Bob,

Roger, Is the CEE a supplemental electrode? If so, please quote from NEC.

Not that it matters, but yes it is, see 250.53(D)(2) which will send you back to 250.52(A)(3).

The fact is, the illustrations are correct.

Roger

 

[roger]

Bob, It is the detail that is incorrect. Talk with the illustrator who probably never wired a house in his/her life. rbj

It would behoove those that have wired houses to look at the illustrations for the proper way to install the GES.

Roger

 

[iwire]

Bob, It is the detail that is incorrect. Talk with the illustrator who probably never wired a house in his/her life. rbj

So that I am sure we are talking about the same thing :smile: would the following sum up your opinion?

You feel the only issue with the detail is the fact that the conductor between the panel and the CEE is not continuous and therefore violates 260.64(C)?

 

[gndrod]

Permanent bonds

Permanent bonds

Bob, Rob and Roger,

I would agree with our conversation if the incorrect detail (Jr. Weaver) was revised with a reference flag stating that the connection was permanent. (I.e. Exothermic weld, or irreversible listed connection device.) rbj

 

[iwire]

I would agree with our conversation if the incorrect detail (Jr. Weaver) was revised with a reference flag stating that the connection was permanent. (I.e. Exothermic weld, or irreversible listed connection device.) rbj

*2005* References​

But that would be a lie as it is not required.

Please look at this image and keep an open mind. In this image there is only one conductor that is in fact the "Grounding Electrode Conductor", it runs from the panel to any convenient electrode in the grounding electrode system. 250.64(F)

The 'continuous requirement' in 250.64(C) only applies to the Grounding Electrode conductor and in the above picture the Grounding electrode conductor is continuous.

All the other conductors are bonding jumpers, and are correctly labeled as such as mentioned by 250.53(C) and are not subject to 250.64(C) at all.

 

[gndrod]

Not that it matters, but yes it is, see 250.53(D)(2) which will send you back to 250.52(A)(3).

The fact is, the illustrations are correct.

Roger

Roger,
If there is no metal underground water pipe, then the CEE is not supplemental. In fact the first three electrodes mentioned in [250.52] are excluded from the [250.50] last sentence...."Where none of the grounding electrodes exist, one or more of the electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) shall be installed and used." These are the supplemental electrodes used in lieu of the common electrodes not present.

The 250.52(A)(1) is becoming extinct in residential (and commercial high-rise) opting for PEX or CPVC. This is the main reason for specifying CEE with any structure. rbj

 

[gndrod]

*2005* References​

But that would be a lie as it is not required.

Please look at this image and keep an open mind. In this image there is only one conductor that is in fact the "Grounding Electrode Conductor", it runs from the panel to any convenient electrode in the grounding electrode system. 250.64(F)

The 'continuous requirement' in 250.64(C) only applies to the Grounding Electrode conductor and in the above picture the Grounding electrode conductor is continuous.

All the other conductors are bonding jumpers, and are correctly labeled as such as mentioned by 250.53(C) and are not subject to 250.64(C) at all.

Bob, I am keeping an open mind and look at the illustrated iron girder structure as being the steel industries future for ranch house residentials. So in the next residential remodel that takes out the metal water pipes we won't need to worry about a UFER as long as the girder get bonded through the concrete footings. Still the UFER is required and needs to be bonded through a continuous, permanently bonded structure. Sounds expensive to most people. The details need to have a reference to support a permanent bond. rbj

 

[iwire]

Bob, I am keeping an open mind and look at the illustrated iron girder structure as being the steel industries future for ranch house residentials. So in the next residential remodel that takes out the metal water pipes we won't need to worry about a UFER as long as the girder get bonded through the concrete footings. Still the UFER is required and needs to be bonded through a continuous, permanently bonded structure. Sounds expensive to most people. The details need to have a reference to support a permanent bond. rbj

I am not following you but the fact remains, all three images that have been posted are NEC compliant without the addition of Exothermic weld, or irreversible listed connection device etc.

You are misinterpreting the the NEC sections.

 

[gndrod]

I am not following you but the fact remains, all three images that have been posted are NEC compliant without the addition of Exothermic weld, or irreversible listed connection device etc.

You are misinterpreting the the NEC sections.

Bob,
I respect your opinion and hope that any apprentice newbie can understand how to wire a residence using industrial illustrated graphics that do not follow code and UL listed requirements with reasonable residential depictions. The impedance buildup through the iron structure alone is a recipe for disaster without reliable permanent bonded GEC's that are portrayed in series through a commercial framework. One loose connection in a dwelling single GEC is a hazard waiting to happen.
rbj