upgrading service

[gndrod]

Supplemental and some here think

Supplemental and some here think

Mike, Thanks for commenting on supplemental from my quote you made in post #99. Some here think I believe that a CEE is supplemental. Please read my post #50 where I asked the moderator if the CEE is supplemental. I was not the one who agreed with the return answer in #52 post. Someone here is reading between the lines.

Go back to #52 and give someone here more credit. THE CEE IS NOT SUPPLEMENTAL! Taking a partial quote from article [250.53(E)], it states "that portion of the bonding jumper that is the sole connector to the SUPPLEMENTAL grounding electrode shall not be required to be larger than #6 AWG copper wire or #4 AWG aluminum wire." The CEE in 2008 NEC parlance is non-supplemental as based upon most new construction starts requiring #4 rebar and #4 AWG conductor bonding. Check the rebar requirements in the UBC or IRC. (R403.1.3.1)

Bob, Reality is that a 100 AMP service using #8 AWG Cu to a CEE requires a protective raceway in conduit [250.64(B)] that is so expensive, labor intensive and ridiculous. Reason, when was the last time you saw new start-up residential home construction or multi-dwelling electrical service meter-Center installations using a 100 Amps.

Get real and refer back to some of your other threads suggesting #4 AWG conductors bonds to CEE's. I can understand why this thread is very confusing especially when I read your link to the State of Mass. references to CEE installations.

What is going on here? Have I offended you? If so, I did not intentionally. This whole thread is regurgitation of code being sliced into segmented statements. Is this all about my questioning your hypothetical comments? Sorry if I am confused. rbj

 

[roger]

Mike, Thanks for commenting on supplemental from my quote you made in post #99. Some here think I believe that a CEE is supplemental. Please read my post #50 where I asked the moderator if the CEE is supplemental. I was not the one who agreed with the return answer in #52 post. Someone here is reading between the lines.

Now you're changing the whole premise of your argument, Read post 52 again and notice that I said "not that it matters", the rest of the post was answering the context of your question, for further clarification read post #53 again to where I was referring to the GES as in Grounding Electrode System, not supplemental electrodes required in 250.53(D)(2)

Go back to #52 and give someone here more credit. THE CEE IS NOT SUPPLEMENTAL!

That's what we have been trying to tell you the illustrations are showing, it's just part of the GES and only has to be bonded to the others by means of a jumper. the illustrations are correct for residential as well as commercial and industrial

The CEE in 2008 NEC parlance is non-supplemental as based upon most new construction starts requiring #4 rebar and #4 AWG conductor bonding.

The CEE can certainly can be a supplemental electrode, once again, read 250.53(D)((2)



Now, I guess you will just have to continue to believe what you have believed to be true but, if you are teaching this to others you are teaching them wrong.


Roger

 

[jwelectric]

This is very good graphics that really needs additional data to maintain code compliant requirements in Article 250. The illustrations needing clarification include:

#1 The waterpipe electrode must be bonded within 5 ft. of the pipe exiting from the concrete foundation. [250.52(A)(1)]
#3 The UFER (CEE) must be a continuous GEC with no splices from the Main Disconnect panel terminal bar (Service grounded and Equipment grounding). This requirement is very subtle in that the water pipe electrode can be a continuous #6 [250.52(A)(1)] while the UFER must have a continuous #4 GEC [250.52(A)(3)] in order to be compliant to [250.58] Common GEC's and [250.64(C)] Continuous GEC's.

The illustration is obviously an industrial example that has been in practice for a long time but in new construction there are cases where the 2005 and 2008 cycles can enforce the above to be imposed in both commercial and residential areas.

Happy Holidays, rbj

Ground Rod

When I started reading this thread this is the post that caught and held my attention. Nothing personal but when I read this post my first thought was here is an idiot that thinks he knows something but in reality knows absolutely nothing about what he is talking about.

Now if this wasn?t enough to make anyone sit up and take notice this is your very next comment.

Hi Rob and Roger,

As Mentioned, #3 shows the UFER tapped off of the water pipe electrode, which becomes a splice in the UFER electrodes GEC. The reason for the violation is that the continuous GEC from the panel can be a #6 awg conductor to the pipe.

The UFER GEC must be a continuous #4 awg to the panel. The illustration depicts the UFER GEC as a tapped connection (through the pipe) that reduces the UFER #4 GEC to a #6 awg back to the main panel constituting a code violation of both [250.62(C)] and [250.52(3)]

Residential GEC connections to both the UFER and H2O pipe electrodes can not be series connected as shown in the illustration for the reason of conductor sizing. Both are continuous until they are connected together at the Main Disconnect terminal bar. [250.58] rbj

Where in this world did you get that #6 to a water pipe from? There was no mention of it before your post and any conductor to a water pipe is to be sized on Table 250.66.
There is no mention at all any where in 250.52 on the proper size of the grounding electrode conductor.

Then in the first post I quoted above you say that #3 of the Holt illustration needs to be updated to say that a concrete encased electrode has to have its own grounding electrode conductor and you refer to 250.52(A)(3).
Where do you find this in 250.52(A)(3)?

In the second post I quoted above you tell Roger and Rob that the concrete encased electrode bonding jumper landing on the water pipe is a splice. I don?t see any kind of wire nut there so how is it a splice?
Again you made the comment that the grounding electrode conductor to the water pipe could be a #6 without giving a service size. You did make the comment in the first quote that the illustration is obviously an industrial example so I suppose that this industrial example only has a 150 amp service.

Now that you had my undivided attention you went on to say Residential GEC connections to both the UFER and H2O pipe electrodes can not be series connected as shown in the illustration for the reason of conductor sizing. Both are continuous until they are connected together at the Main Disconnect terminal bar.

After I picked myself up off the floor I read that again to see if it would be funny the second time but I supposed that after 30 minutes of laughing there was no more laugh left in me but I did grin real big.

While you are digging around in 250.64 looking a (C) to argue that all these conductors have to be continuous look on down the page a little and read (F). I think this might help you understand that as long as the grounding electrode conductor is as large as required for the type electrodes being used then it would be permissible to land on a rod and then bond every other electrode to that rod using the proper size bonding jumper.

I just can?t understand why you are maintaining that the CEE has to have its own grounding electrode conductor.

 

[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, I see your statement of "but yes it is" and that is an inescapable answer. And it does matter due to the nature of foundations that are all installed with rebar in 2005 and 2008 building codes unless they are constructing pole houses. rbj

 

[steelersman]

Roger, I see your statement of "but yes it is" and that is an inescapable answer. And it does matter due to the nature of foundations that are all installed with rebar in 2005 and 2008 building codes unless they are constructing pole houses. rbj

Man you are relentless. Do you realize that if you could just dig down real deep and find it within you to man up and admit that you must have been interpreting or misreading something wrong, you will feel a huge weight lifted off of your shoulders. Try it. I know from my own experience and I used to have the hardest time admitting when I was wrong. It's not that hard anymore. Just take my advice please.

 

[gndrod]

Man you are relentless. Do you realize that if you could just dig down real deep and find it within you to man up and admit that you must have been interpreting or misreading something wrong, you will feel a huge weight lifted off of your shoulders. Try it. I know from my own experience and I used to have the hardest time admitting when I was wrong. It's not that hard anymore. Just take my advice please.

Maybe I will. You are a good man. Thanks. rbj