upgrading service

[iwire]

aha surprisingly wise answer.

I may be a wise guy but I am not an idiot.

 

[steelersman]

I may be a wise guy but I am not an idiot.

Wow! Yeah I heard about that before. I don't understand why he would tackle a guy from the team he's a fan of. Must be a mental disturbance that affects Patsies fans.

 

[gndrod]

[250.50] with apology

[250.50] with apology

Bob, Rob, Rodger,

Please forgive me for any Freudian potshots I unintentionally let slip. (Back East hornets, non-resi inference to Bob)

I would like to re-iterate the [250.50] post Rob and I discussed that is a key factor in understanding why I insist that the graphics were not concise in the original illustration commented about per the Article 250.50 and other associated references;

"250.50 Grounding Electrode System. All grounding electrodes as described in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(7) 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)(8) shall be installed and listed."

In remodel both structure and piping exist, in most cases, established grounding and bonding configurations usually agree with the graphics representing the 2005 and earlier bonding and electrode NEC rules.

In 2008 reality, a new start-up residential or commercial electrical project must begin with installing the CEE per [(250.52(A)(3)] and be inspected prior to concrete close-in. In the process the CEE precedes any structure or water piping installations until the foundation is poured.

Contractors tend to get tripped up using a smaller conductor other than a #4 AWG when the CEE is installed and inspected prior to the foundation close-in . The AHJ inspector wants to see a #4 AWG. Reason? Without evidence of any H2O and steel structure the AHJ require UFER sign-off with the #4 AWG GEC. (maximum [250.66] conductor compliance regardless of service size.) Call it CYA if you like.

So laugh at me or throw eggs, I am giving a reason from experience why the Illustration must be changed for 2008 configurations. Do not bet on anything being a perfect world, but be sure that the CEE per [250.50], [250.52(A)(3)], and [250.64(C)] (continuous GEC into the panel for the CEE) is compliant or maybe the GC can convince the plumbing contractor to use copper in multi-family high-rise. rbj

 

[infinity]

Contractors tend to get tripped up using a smaller conductor other than a #4 AWG when the CEE is installed and inspected prior to the foundation close-in . The AHJ inspector wants to see a #4 AWG. Reason? Without evidence of any H2O and steel structure the AHJ require UFER sign-off with the #4 AWG GEC. (maximum [250.66] conductor compliance regardless of service size.) Call it CYA if you like.

That's fine if you feel that someone should inspect a CEE that way, but it doesn't change the fact that it goes outside of the requirements of the NEC. So call it a local requirement or just the way things are done in a particular place but don't call it an NEC requirement because it isn't and it may be misleading to someone to say that it is.

 

[gndrod]

That's fine if you feel that someone should inspect a CEE that way, but it doesn't change the fact that it goes outside of the requirements of the NEC. So call it a local requirement or just the way things are done in a particular place but don't call it an NEC requirement because it isn't and it may be misleading to someone to say that it is.

I agree on that providing a metal H2O pipe gets installed, otherwise, requiring the GEC to be coming from the UFER 2008 installation is an NEC 250.50 basic requirement.

 

[iwire]

I agree on that providing a metal H2O pipe gets installed, otherwise, requiring the GEC to be coming from the UFER 2008 installation is an NEC 250.50 basic requirement.

Yes we have to use a uffer if it exists, and if it exists of rebar it could be a 8 awg from the rebar to the panel for a 100 amp service.

There is no other way to say it, you are wrong and your misleading people.

 

[iwire]

In 2008 reality, a new start-up residential or commercial electrical project must begin with installing the CEE per [(250.52(A)(3)]

That is absolutely false, there is no NEC requirement to install a CCE.

If one exists out of rebar we must use it.

So laugh at me or throw eggs, I am giving a reason from experience why the Illustration must be changed for 2008 configurations.

I am not laughing or throwing eggs, I am saddened that you continue to mislead and confuse people.

 

[elohr46]

I agree on that providing a metal H2O pipe gets installed, otherwise, requiring the GEC to be coming from the UFER 2008 installation is an NEC 250.50 basic requirement.

Actually the only basic requirement is that a grounding electrode system be installed as per (2008 nec) 250.52(A)(4) thru 250.52(A)(8) if no electrode is present. A CEE is not one of them.

 

[jwelectric]

I have read this very long thread and have some questions.

Many times throughout this thread there have been many references to ?Supplemental Electrodes? even calling those electrodes outlined in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) supplemental electrodes.

I have always thought that any and all electrodes outlined in 250.52 were to be bonded together to make ONE big electrode, is this not true?
Are not all these electrodes that are bonded together one big electrode?
If they do constitute one big electrode then there is not any supplementation but only one electrode system or one giant electrode.

I have also always thought of what everyone calls ?Supplemental Electrodes? to be those outlined in 250.54 which are actually auxiliary grounding electrodes.

I have always thought that the Grounding Electrode Conductor had to originate in the service equipment and any conductor that tied (bonded) any two or more electrodes together to make one large electrode was a bonding jumper. An example of this would be that conductor from rod one to rod two is a bonding jumper not a grounding electrode conductor. Again is this true?

You all have me so confused that I am beginning to wonder if the driven conduits are worth my time to drive them.

 

[steelersman]

I have read this very long thread and have some questions.

Many times throughout this thread there have been many references to ?Supplemental Electrodes? even calling those electrodes outlined in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) supplemental electrodes.

I have always thought that any and all electrodes outlined in 250.52 were to be bonded together to make ONE big electrode, is this not true?
Are not all these electrodes that are bonded together one big electrode?
If they do constitute one big electrode then there is not any supplementation but only one electrode system or one giant electrode.

I have also always thought of what everyone calls ?Supplemental Electrodes? to be those outlined in 250.54 which are actually auxiliary grounding electrodes.

I have always thought that the Grounding Electrode Conductor had to originate in the service equipment and any conductor that tied (bonded) any two or more electrodes together to make one large electrode was a bonding jumper. An example of this would be that conductor from rod one to rod two is a bonding jumper not a grounding electrode conductor. Again is this true?

You all have me so confused that I am beginning to wonder if the driven conduits are worth my time to drive them.

For me personally, I always had it in my head I think from 4th year of school that there were such a thing as a suplemental electrode, for example in a home the copper water line entering from the ground being the primary and then driving 1 ground rod and it being the supplemental.

I'm actually a little confused as you are. Let me ask this: would it be enough to just ground the copper main water line supplying a house with a 200 amp service and the ground rod wouldn't be necesarry?

 

[infinity]

Many times throughout this thread there have been many references to “Supplemental Electrodes” even calling those electrodes outlined in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) supplemental electrodes.

Only the water pipe is required to be supplemented by another electrode.

I have also always thought of what everyone calls “Supplemental Electrodes” to be those outlined in 250.54 which are actually auxiliary grounding electrodes.

I have always thought that the Grounding Electrode Conductor had to originate in the service equipment and any conductor that tied (bonded) any two or more electrodes together to make one large electrode was a bonding jumper. An example of this would be that conductor from rod one to rod two is a bonding jumper not a grounding electrode conductor. Again is this true?

Yes the GEC originates at the neutral, other conductors used to connect the electrodes together are bonding jumpers.

Auxiliary electrodes and supplemental electrodes are two different things.

 

[jwelectric]

Many times throughout this thread there have been many references to ?Supplemental Electrodes? even calling those electrodes outlined in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(8) supplemental electrodes.

Only the water pipe is required to be supplemented by another electrode.

Yes I agree that 250.53(D)(2) uses the word ?supplemented? but once this requirement is fulfilled then does not this constitute one electrode system or in other words one electrode.

Yes the GEC originates at the neutral, other conductors used to connect the electrodes together are bonding jumpers.

So then this means that the illustrations outlined in this thread are a compliant installation as each illustration only has one ground electrode conductor, is this correct?

Auxiliary electrodes and supplemental electrodes are two different things.

Then would it be safe to say that once a ?Supplemental Electrode? has been installed and bonded back to all the other electrodes outlined in 250.52 that there is only one giant electrode system and the words ?Supplemental Electrodes? can be forgot about?

 

[iwire]

Mike you are very bad at playing dumb.:smile:

I personally don't really see why your so concerned about this supplemental junk when we still have not gotten by these problems.

In 2008 reality, a new start-up residential or commercial electrical project must begin with installing the CEE per [(250.52(A)(3)] and be inspected prior to concrete close-in. In the process the CEE precedes any structure or water piping installations until the foundation is poured.

There is no NEC requirement to install a CEE

Contractors tend to get tripped up using a smaller conductor other than a #4 AWG when the CEE is installed and inspected prior to the foundation close-in . The AHJ inspector wants to see a #4 AWG. Reason? Without evidence of any H2O and steel structure the AHJ require UFER sign-off with the #4 AWG GEC. (maximum [250.66] conductor compliance regardless of service size.) Call it CYA if you like.

There is no NEC requirement to use a 4 AWG GEC to a CEE unless the service size and 250.66 requires it.

 

[JohnJ0906]

There is no NEC requirement to use a 4 AWG GEC to a CEE unless the service size and 250.66 requires it.

I agree, but if wire is installed AS the CEE, then #4 AWG is required as a minimum (250.52(A)(3))

 

[iwire]

I agree, but if wire is installed AS the CEE, then #4 AWG is required as a minimum (250.52(A)(3))

Without a doubt that is true, and I have not said otherwise. If I make a CEE of wire I have to use at least 4 AWG but the GEC or bonding jumper connecting it to the panel or GES could still smaller then 4 AWG.

 

[peter d]

It seems there are several issues at play here:

1) The installation of a CEE and its proper use, conductor size, and connection
2) When are we required to use irreversible or cadweld type connections
3) And now the topic of "supplemental" electrodes has come up

Can you say "confusing?" :smile:

 

[JohnJ0906]

Without a doubt that is true, and I have not said otherwise. If I make a CEE of wire I have to use at least 4 AWG but the GEC or bonding jumper connecting it to the panel or GES could still smaller then 4 AWG.

I agree, It was a "supplemental" post

I wonder if the 2 different requirements is the cause of the confusion.

 

[iwire]

I agree, It was a "supplemental" post

Everybody is a wise guy

 

[jwelectric]

Mike you are very bad at playing dumb. I personally don't really see why your so concerned about this supplemental junk when we still have not gotten by these problems.

Thank you for the compliment. Because of the post below he should look at the grounding electrode system as being one giant electrode then he will have a better understanding of the idea of grounding.

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

These are not supplemental electrodes but they are just plain old electrodes that can stand alone if no other electrode is present.

It seems there are several issues at play here: 1) The installation of a CEE and its proper use, conductor size, and connection 2) When are we required to use irreversible or cadweld type connections 3) And now the topic of "supplemental" electrodes has come up Can you say "confusing?"

All of this can very confusing if one lets a lot of needless information enter the equation. I think that this is the problem with some of the people posting in this thread. The simple way of looking at the electrodes is to simply look at all the items outlined in 250.52 as comprising one electrode and then installing the grounding electrode conductor to the electrode.
We address a metal water pipe from Table 250.66 and every other item outlined in 250.52 can be addressed in the same manner.

As Bob has pointed out, a 100 amp service would only require a #8 grounding electrode conductor for the entire electrode system if all the electrodes were installed this would include 20 feet of #4 in the footer or a #2 ground ring around the building.

I am of the opinion that some here think that every conductor installed on the electrode system is part of the grounding electrode conductor and I see this opinion on a daily basis. When someone is sold on this idea it can be very difficult to change their mind. ..

 

[iwire]

he should look at the grounding electrode system as being one giant electrode then he will have a better understanding of the idea of grounding.

I agree, it could help.

These are not supplemental electrodes but they are just plain old electrodes that can stand alone if no other electrode is present

I agree and missed that he seems to feel otherwise.

The simple way of looking at the electrodes is to simply look at all the items outlined in 250.52 as comprising one electrode and then installing the grounding electrode conductor to the electrode.

I agree.

We address a metal water pipe from Table 250.66 and every other item outlined in 250.52 can be addressed in the same manner.

I agree.

some here think that every conductor installed on the electrode system is part of the grounding electrode conductor

I agree

When someone is sold on this idea it can be very difficult to change their mind. ..

I agree

I used to assume the same thing before I dove in deeper.