Why no splicing of ground rod conductors ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

avm32

Member
Location
Seattle
Occupation
Electrician
Hello,

NEC does not allow splicing ground rod conductors according to 250.64.
Curious if anyone can figure out the reason behind the rule.
The only explanation I can think of is that lightning strikes might damage splices.
Just trying to expand my understanding ...

Thanks!


250.6: [...] grounding electrode conductor(s) shall be installed in one continuous length without a splice or joint. If necessary, splices or connections shall be made as permitted in (1) through (4):

(1) Splicing of the wire-type grounding electrode conductor shall be permitted only by irreversible compression-type connectors listed as grounding and bonding equipment or by the exothermic welding process.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think that anyone knows that answer but I bet you'll here quite of few guesses.
 
Splices are allowed, it’s just they are required to be in such a way that a bad connection is very unlikely. Split bolts, setscrew type connections can loosen over time. Cad welds (if done correctly) along with compression crimps have a low failure rate in this application.
 
Last edited:
hillbilly1 said:
Splices are allowed, it’s just they are required to be in such a way that a bad connection is very unlikely. Split bolts, setscrew type connections can loosen over time. Cad welds (if done correctly) along with compression crimps have a low failure rate in this application.
Click to expand...
What sense does that make though? Which is worse to have come loose, a set screw splice on a ground rod or a neutral?
 
Those who have been called out in the middle of the night during a hurricane or blizzard conditions to repair a GEC that has come apart know why.

Roger
 
I'll add that split bolts are allowed for taps from a GEC to the service disconnect via bonding jumpers so why is that allowed? The unspliced GEC might never even enter the enclosure.
 
So the next question is, why does the NEC/NFPA/CMP so staunchly refuse to change some of this absurd garbage in the code? It really makes me have very little faith in this organization and publication. I would be embarrassed to have such an outdated unjustified thing in a body of work I was involved in. In fact, it's not just ridiculous, it's dangerous as it helps continue grounding myths.
 
I’ve searched for the reasoning behind this also.
I’ve asked some really good engineers that were speaking at many O&E conferences over the years when this comes up with a simple “Why”
They don’t know either..
 
Only non reversible connections allowed? Exothermic/Cadweld etc.?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
avm32 said:
Hello,

NEC does not allow splicing ground rod conductors according to 250.64.
Curious if anyone can figure out the reason behind the rule.
The only explanation I can think of is that lightning strikes might damage splices.
Just trying to expand my understanding ...

Thanks!
Click to expand...
read that carefully. What must generally be continuous is the "Grounding electrode conductor".

If a rod is your only electrode (other than a second supplemental rod) then the conductor to it is also the "GEC"

If you have say a water pipe electrode most cases you will run a GEC to the water pipe that is continuous. You can however run a bonding jumper to additional electrodes like structural steel and/or a ground rod - those do not need to be continuous.
 
Was there a requirement that a continuous loop of wire from panel to each rod an back be made? We've had some inspectors insist on that.
 
Fred B said:
Was there a requirement that a continuous loop of wire from panel to each rod an back be made? We've had some inspectors insist on that.
Click to expand...
I've never read that in any edition of the NEC but I have heard some clueless inspectors say that they want it done that way.
 
infinity said:
I've never read that in any edition of the NEC but I have heard some clueless inspectors say that they want it done that way.
Click to expand...
I never saw it either but thought maybe somewhere in the past it was in there. Maybe combining or mixing up with a Ground Ring (250.52(A)(4)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top