ufer question for small residential addition

[iwire]

No one.
But the question was enough to trigger calling it what it is, "a buried unused electrode".

JAP>

The NEC has no term for that.

Its is an electrode that was created at the structure therefore 250.50 requires it to be connected to the grounding electrode system.

Of course you could try to call it an auxiliary grounding electrode.

250.54 Auxiliary Grounding Electrodes. One or more
grounding electrodes shall be permitted to be connected to
the equipment grounding conductors specified in 250.118
and shall not be required to comply with the electrode
bonding requirements of 250.50 or 250.53(C) or the resistance
requirements of 250.53(A)(2) Exception, but the
earth shall not be used as an effective ground-fault current
path as specified in 250.4(A)(5) and 250.4(8)(4).

And if the AHJ bought into that you would only have to tie it into a local EGC instead of the service.


Guys, listen I understand how you feel and if I was building this addition I would likely not have contemplated adding an electrode.

But forget what we normally do and normally think. Read the code words and tell me where you see that 250.50 only applies when panel work is being done?

 

[petersonra]

But forget what we normally do and normally think. Read the code words and tell me where you see that 250.50 only applies when panel work is being done?

It does seem pretty clear.

 

[jap]

The only thing I try to get straight in my head is "Why".

If a GES is already established for a service, why is more grounding required after the fact?
We are talking about grounding here and not bonding aren't we?

Its not like adding arc fault breakers and ground fault receptacles or other upgrades like someone mentioned earlier, that's something completely different.

The only reason I could see the need to have to bond a new CEE to an existing service would be to eliminate a difference of potential.

Which if I was installing an addition, and had rebar in the footing, I'd most likely bond it back somehow myself.

If eliminating the DOP is not the case, and the existing GES is compliant, Why would you need to connect to it?

JAP>

 

[Strathead]

Interpretation is not even close to making rules up which strat seems to feel is happening here. :huh:

How is that not making up rules. I am really trying to understand here. You say let's stick to the issue, but the issue is not about a UFER, it is about upgrades to existing buildings. So take just one other issue. It could be any I will choose 406.11 because it isn't too long since I don't have cut and paste.

406.12 Tamper-Resistant Receptacles in Dwelling Units. In all areas specified in 210.52, all nonlocking-type 125-volt, 15- and 20-ampere receptacles shall be listed tamper-resistant receptacles.

If you say that the UFER requirement can be INTERPRETED as applying to existing construction, then you must believe this can be as well. So the first time someone touches the electrical in a multi-family high rise all receptacles must be upgraded. Or, explain to me how you distinguish the difference between these two sections where UFER requires upgrades or implies the requirement, but 406 doesn't.

 

[jap]

I keep reading this over and over and over.
The more I read it, the more evident it is that if rebar or the like is installed in a new footing, which is a grounding electrode, and it is present, then I'm jumping onto the side that it needs to be connected to. That line about "Served" pretty well seals the deal for me.
I see now that It also does not give a time line on as to when that grounding electrode is created, making it even more evident to me.

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 used.


JAP>

 

[jap]

This is much like the argument about using a raceway as an EGC and a wire type EGC need not be installed, but, once you do install a wire type EGC your subject to a whole new set of rules.

Took me a long time to wrap my head around that one also.

In this scenario if rebar was not installed in the footing (Which I know of very few that would not) then you wouldn't be subject to the rules that apply, but, once the rebar was installed it became subject to a whole new set of rules.

JAP>

 

[Strathead]

This is much like the argument about using a raceway as an EGC and a wire type EGC need not be installed, but, once you do install a wire type EGC your subject to a whole new set of rules.

Took me a long time to wrap my head around that one also.

In this scenario if rebar was not installed in the footing (Which I know of very few that would not) then you wouldn't be subject to the rules that apply, but, once the rebar was installed it became subject to a whole new set of rules.

JAP>

So, you are working is a mall. They are adding an anchor store to the south end that will be tied in to the entire existing Mall. You feel that you are are required to run a #4 all the way through the mall 300 plus yards to the other end where there is a bank of services because it is part of the building being served.

 

[ActionDave]

....In this scenario if rebar was not installed in the footing (Which I know of very few that would not) then you wouldn't be subject to the rules that apply, but, once the rebar was installed it became subject to a whole new set of rules.

JAP>

How does new rebar in a new footing make an existing service a code violation?

 

[ActionDave]

...But forget what we normally do and normally think. Read the code words and tell me where you see that 250.50 only applies when panel work is being done?

Normally there rarely is a time when existing equipment that is not part of the scope of work is included in an electrical inspection.

 

[iwire]

Normally there rarely is a time when existing equipment that is not part of the scope of work is included in an electrical inspection.

I agree, lets say the inspector had no reason to look at the service.

But he does get a permit application on his desk for an addition, he looks over to the building inspector and asks 'Is the foundation on lot 22 getting rebar?' The building inspector says yes.

That could be all it could take, now the inspector knows there will be a new electrode being added and that 250.50 requires it to be connected. It has nothing to do with the service and everything to do with the electrode.


Am I saying this is absoulutly how it should be enforced?

Heck no, :happyno: just saying that they can enforce it that way without abusing their authoritah.

 

[iwire]

How does new rebar in a new footing make an existing service a code violation?

It does not make the service in violation. There is nothing in article 230 about new rebar.


However leaving the new electrode not connected to the grounding electrode system is a grounding violation and you know what one.

 

[iwire]

So, you are working is a mall. They are adding an anchor store to the south end that will be tied in to the entire existing Mall. You feel that you are are required to run a #4 all the way through the mall 300 plus yards to the other end where there is a bank of services because it is part of the building being served.

If it where me I would tie the new uffer into the existing grounding electrode system as required by 250.50. In your example that would likely be building steel right at the point the new construction attaches too.

If it was wood framed construction I might well have to run a GEC all the way back. No one said construction is easy.


Please try to forget about the service, this thread is not about a service it is about a grounding electrode and it's requirements.

 

[iwire]

How is that not making up rules. I am really trying to understand here.

And respectfully I really can't understand what you are not understanding.

250.50 is a stand alone code section that apples with or without a service.

There is nothing in article 250 that tells us 250.52 only applies at the time a service is installed.

I am not saying their should not be an exception, I am simply pointing out that there is not one. I ask you again, point me to the words anywhere in the code book that tell us 250.50 only applies when a panel is installed.

If you say that the UFER requirement can be INTERPRETED as applying to existing construction,

But I am not saying 250.50 applies to existing construction. It does not.

It applies to new installations and new grounding electrode was installed. 250.50 requires it to be connected to the buildings GES.

 

[Strathead]

And respectfully I really can't understand what you are not understanding.

250.50 is a stand alone code section that apples with or without a service.

There is nothing in article 250 that tells us 250.52 only applies at the time a service is installed.

I am not saying their should not be an exception, I am simply pointing out that there is not one. I ask you again, point me to the words anywhere in the code book that tell us 250.50 only applies when a panel is installed.




But I am not saying 250.50 applies to existing construction. It does not.

It applies to new installations and new grounding electrode was installed. 250.50 requires it to be connected to the buildings GES.

The code does not say it only applies to a panel when installed. So I again ask, where in NEC 406 does it state that you the requirement for tamper resistant receptacles only applies to new installations?

 

[iwire]

So I again ask, where in NEC 406 does it state that you the requirement for tamper resistant receptacles only applies to new installations?

406 never says that, 90.2 says that.

90.2 Scope.
(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation of electrical
conductors, equipment, and raceways; signaling and communications
conductors, equipment, and raceways; and optical
fiber cables and raceways for the following:

But I point out again. This uffer was not existing, it is in fact new, as in just recently installed.

 

[Strathead]

406 never says that, 90.2 says that.



But I point out again. This uffer was not existing, it is in fact new, as in just recently installed.

OK, I think I get the nuance you are presenting finally. In that case then, there is nothing that says you have to create an exposed UFER in the addition, so it would alleviate this to just not create one.

Don't get me wrong, I am prone to going above code, and as long as it was convenient and didn't cost the customer an arm and a leg, I would install a UFER and bond it.

Lastly, I am glad no one got so anal as to point out that it isn't really a UFER!

 

[mwm1752]

OK, I think I get the nuance you are presenting finally. In that case then, there is nothing that says you have to create an exposed UFER in the addition, so it would alleviate this to just not create one.

Don't get me wrong, I am prone to going above code, and as long as it was convenient and didn't cost the customer an arm and a leg, I would install a UFER and bond it.

Lastly, I am glad no one got so anal as to point out that it isn't really a UFER!

Its ok not to be serious but no need to imply all around should ignore the definition of a UFER & since you do not take the effort to attach then go ahead & bury it so it doesn't exist --

 

[GoldDigger]

Its ok not to be serious but no need to imply all around should ignore the definition of a UFER & since you do not take the effort to attach then go ahead & bury it so it doesn't exist --

Actually, the code and various interpretations and opinions are pretty clear: If you have an AHJ who requires the CEE (UFER) to be bonded it will do you no good to bury it and try to ignore if.
The CEE exists based on the configuration of the rebar, regardless of whether it is exposed for connection or not. That means that where the CEE is required to be bonded (newer code cycle and no other CEE already bonded) you can be required to cut or break into the cured concrete to make the connection.

 

[jap]

It does not make the service in violation. There is nothing in article 230 about new rebar.


However leaving the new electrode not connected to the grounding electrode system is a grounding violation and you know what one.

I-wire is taking the words right out of my mouth now that I understand where he and the code seem to be coming from. Starting at post #51 which are replies to quotes I made earlier, I had the same responses in my mind as he but didn't have to take the time to type them out and I appreciate that.

JAP>

 

[jap]

So, you are working is a mall. They are adding an anchor store to the south end that will be tied in to the entire existing Mall. You feel that you are are required to run a #4 all the way through the mall 300 plus yards to the other end where there is a bank of services because it is part of the building being served.

Let's put it this way.
I don't see the harm if I didnt, but by the wording of the section wouldn't have a good argument not to if an inspector felt I needed to.

JAP>