|
| Ek's Home | Forum | Chat | Electrical Links | |
| Subject - Concrete Encased Electrode | |
| electroman | I am wondering how other jurisdictions are handling the change in 250.50 requiring a concrete encased electrode. I have heard discussion that a stub out of re-bar for the electrician to hit is the answer, but while talking to building code officials I was informed that this would be a violation of the IBC which requires all re-bar to be completely encased in concrete. This will become a requirement in Minnesota July 1st, 2005. How are electricians in other parts of the country accomplishing this? |
| JimmyDee | What a nightmare this is going to be. This will require an additional inspection and an extra trip to the job by electrician before pouring footings. I can see some real problems if this is enforced. Jim |
| Ryan_J | I don't see any problems. I'll have to look in the building code tommorrow, but if I'm not mistaken, the clearance issue only applies where the rebar is exposed to the elements. Don't quote me on that just yet though. :) |
| lctrc789 | When ever we intsall UFER grounds or concrete encased grounds using re bar and # 2 wire it is always cadwelded and inspected at the time the inspector does his footing inspections. But if you are claiming that rebar has to be out of the ground at the time of inspection or for inspection that is going to be a major headache. One thing we have alot of here in the city is if you are licensed and certified we have self certification tags to get meters installed and for the most part never see an inspector unless it is a job that the customer wants, or requests. It does eliminate the inspectors for us and let's us go on with our work they have been doing this for a long time ands it does work out well. |
| sparky13 | We have been discussing this issue for a few weeks now with our Building Inspectors. According to the IRC. the rebar that is attched to the footing for support has to be encased. A stub can be secured with wire and stubbed out. Wow what a pain in the a** for all. |
| powerup | Why is this old technology being thrown at us after all these years? Is the code panel getting bored? A UFER ground is virtually useless – that’s why it isn’t, already, in common use. Duhh!!! In our town the concrete guys are, supposedly, going to leave a rebar stub near the service location, to be connected to a number four conductor with an acorn nut. Along with all the other problems associated with this – our power company doesn’t normally give us the meter location until long after the concrete is pored, unless the building is fairly large and commercial. I can easily see hundreds of feet of bare copper being strung across a building, “oops, gee, I guess I should have stubbed that up over there.” (blush) |
| rk233 | As far as I know this isn't a change to the code. |
| sparky13 | Seems maybe earth ground rod isn't enough
|
| Ryan_J | quote: The change is in section 250.50. Notice that the words "if available" have been replaced with "if present". This is a very substantial change. |
| rk233 | When a new building is being erected, which is basically when 250.52-A-3 applies , the footings are present which makes them available so i really see no difference. The electrician had to bond to the footing before and the electrician has to bond to the footing now. |
| sparky13 | Good call Ryan. I do not have my 2005 book yet. It is on the way. I have seen this change but could not remember the exact wording. We are going to try to meet with Omaha and Ne. state and other jurisdiction soon. This seems to be one of the MANY changes. But in our minds one of the biggest,this is involves alot.Between builders , subs and inspectors etc.. |
| Ryan_J | quote: See formal interpretation 78-4 which disagrees with you. The steel being present does not make it available. For example, if someone cuts off the wire you attached to the Ufer, it is present, but it is not available. In the 2002, you could walk away from the job without a Ufer. In the 2005, you couldn't. See the exception in the 2005 to 250.50 for further clarification. |
| Ryan_J | 2002 Language regarding the required electrodes: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If available on the premises at each building or structure served, each item in 250.52(A)(1) through (A)(6) shall be bonded together to form the grounding electrode system. Where none of these electrodes are available, one or more of the electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(7) shall be installed and used. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2005 langauge: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. Wherenon of these grounding electrodes exist, one or more of the grounding electrodes specified in 250.52(A)(4) through (A)(7) shall be 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 without disturbing the concrete. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, under the 2005, your footing and foundation gets poured before you have a chance to install a Ufer, you better get your jack hammer out. |
| sparky13 | Then the Building inspectors start getting pissed. There could be some trouble here. Our C.B.O seems to be very concerned about this issue. He does not want anybody chipping up footings or foundations. Luckily we work in the same office as our Building Inspectors. We can all communicate easily. 
|
| rk233 | Where i live in NJ it has been required to do this, so it isn't a change for me. |
| sparky13 | Seems N.J. is up on things . Good for them. |