ufer question for small residential addition

[jap]

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

It doesn't.
But by the wording of the section it is A means of grounding that has been created and becomes part of the building served and therefore becomes an item tat may need to be connected to.

JAP>

 

[Strathead]

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 --

Let me explain my logic. I don't know if iWire's position is the same as your position, but the comment regarded iWire's position. To rephrase it, if an accessible concrete encased electrode exists in an existing structure, it has to be bonded to the grounding system. Well there is nothing in the building code that says the rebar system has to be accessible and there is nothing in the NEC that says you have to create an accessible UFER in a new footer addition to an existing structure. Therefor, don't create an accessible UFER and you don't need to bond it to the service. Simple as that. Under what authority will the AHJ then have to require it.

 

[iwire]

Let me explain my logic. I don't know if iWire's position is the same as your position, but the comment regarded iWire's position. To rephrase it, if an accessible concrete encased electrode exists in an existing structure, it has to be bonded to the grounding system. Well there is nothing in the building code that says the rebar system has to be accessible and there is nothing in the NEC that says you have to create an accessible UFER in a new footer addition to an existing structure. Therefor, don't create an accessible UFER and you don't need to bond it to the service. Simple as that. Under what authority will the AHJ then have to require it.

Your logic falls apart when you add the fact the addition is not existing, it is new.

When the builder puts rebar in the footing a new uffer is created and that is what must be connected to the buildings grounding electrode system.

 

[mwm1752]

Let me explain my logic. I don't know if iWire's position is the same as your position, but the comment regarded iWire's position. To rephrase it, if an accessible concrete encased electrode exists in an existing structure, it has to be bonded to the grounding system. Well there is nothing in the building code that says the rebar system has to be accessible and there is nothing in the NEC that says you have to create an accessible UFER in a new footer addition to an existing structure. Therefor, don't create an accessible UFER and you don't need to bond it to the service. Simple as that. Under what authority will the AHJ then have to require it.

I would never reinspect a valid electrode system that has been existing with no reason. & if the existing footer steel is not accessible I would not ask to dig into concrete & attach to the footer steel (it may not have steel anyway for all I know) MWM

Your logic falls apart when you add the fact the addition is not existing, it is new.

When the builder puts rebar in the footing a new uffer is created and that is what must be connected to the buildings grounding electrode system.

I agree MWM

 

[Strathead]

Your logic falls apart when you add the fact the addition is not existing, it is new.

When the builder puts rebar in the footing a new uffer is created and that is what must be connected to the buildings grounding electrode system.

Disagree it is an addition to an existing building. We are back to the code not being able to require you to do work on an existing building to bring it up to current codes. I can accept that if there is a bare concrete encased electrode stubbed out of the new concrete then one interpretation would be that it has to be bonded to the existing grounding electrode system because it is present. However again there is nothing in the code that requires one to create an accessible concrete encased electrode. I am glad I at least understand where you were coming from, but at this point it is probably best to agree to disagree, unless I still misunderstand your argument I am not going to agree with you, and it is unlikely you will agree with me. Either way, in the real world I would create a UFER and bond it if it wasn't some sort of heroic effort. But just like I will never, ever install conduit for line voltage without pulling a grounding wire, I will still insist the code doesn't require it.

 

[dkidd]

& if the existing footer steel is not accessible I would not ask to dig into concrete & attach to the footer steel (it may not have steel anyway for all I know) MWM

Before the exception was added, some AHJs were requiring it.

 

[iwire]

Disagree it is an addition to an existing building.

Dude, the addition is new, the footing is new, the uffer is new. You can't call it existing. No way :happyno:

 

[mwm1752]

Before the exception was added, some AHJs were requiring it.

Why did you edit my comment -- you have changed the meaning -- so some AHJ were requiring the concrete to be dug into to find footer steel on existing buildings with compliant electrode systems when there was no new concrete encased steel(UFER) installed as part of the new project?

 

[dkidd]

Why did you edit my comment -- you have changed the meaning -- so some AHJ were requiring the concrete to be dug into to find footer steel on existing buildings with compliant electrode systems when there was no new concrete encased steel(UFER) installed as part of the new project?

How did it change the meaning? And yes, they were, even if there was only a subpanel being added.

 

[packersparky]

Let me explain my logic. I don't know if iWire's position is the same as your position, but the comment regarded iWire's position. To rephrase it, if an accessible concrete encased electrode exists in an existing structure, it has to be bonded to the grounding system. Well there is nothing in the building code that says the rebar system has to be accessible and there is nothing in the NEC that says you have to create an accessible UFER in a new footer addition to an existing structure. Therefor, don't create an accessible UFER and you don't need to bond it to the service. Simple as that. Under what authority will the AHJ then have to require it.

The NEC does not care if the ufer is accessible or not. The electrician didn't create the ufer, the concrete worker did. Just like the plumber creates the underground water pipe or the steel worker creates the building steel. Anything new that qualifies as a grounding electrode would need to get connected to the existing gounding electrode system per 250.50. The NEC simply says if its present it has to be connected.

 

[jap]

The NEC does not care if the ufer is accessible or not. The electrician didn't create the ufer, the concrete worker did. Just like the plumber creates the underground water pipe or the steel worker creates the building steel. Anything new that qualifies as a grounding electrode would need to get connected to the existing gounding electrode system per 250.50. The NEC simply says if its present it has to be connected.

The NEC is often open to interpretation just as the above wording is.

The Plumber installs the underground water pipe and a steel worker installs building steel.
If they actually created it, they'd get paid even more than they already do as compared to electricians who evidently per above aren't very creative unless they happened to throw 20' or more of wire in the ditch before the concrete was poured.


JAP>

 

[GoldDigger]

FWIW, there have been multiple posts in the past few years from ECs who were required to dig into poured concrete for new buildings where no CEE was provided for during the pour but the rebar met the CEE requirements.
In addition there may be local amendments requiring that a wire CEE be created when coated rebar is used.

 

[jap]

Nobody wants to destroy a perfectly good footing.

I've often wondered how many times EC's have destroyed perfectly good footings just to attach to a piece of rebar that they might find in the footing that may not be connected to anything.

How would they know that they weren't just attaching to a scrap piece of rebar that someone may have just thrown in the ditch prior to a pour unless they have some type of x-ray machine that indicates they're actually connecting to the good stuff.

JAP>

 

[mwm1752]

How did it change the meaning? And yes, they were, even if there was only a subpanel being added.

this conversation is established on existing & new conditions --

 

[mwm1752]

FWIW, there have been multiple posts in the past few years from ECs who were required to dig into poured concrete for new buildings where no CEE was provided for during the pour but the rebar met the CEE requirements.
In addition there may be local amendments requiring that a wire CEE be created when coated rebar is used.

Was it due to new construction & the EC did not attach prior to pour or did not instruct the GC to leave a piece of rebar out for future attachment -- possibly --

 

[donselec]

Man guys, I didn't realize my post would create such a stir! To clarify, there will be a rebar system in the footing of the new small addition. It hasn't been installed yet as I speak. It would certainly be possible to run a ground from the panel to this new rebar and connect it at an accessible point in the new crawlspace, and may not be a bad idea. However the building inspector in Centennial, CO, where the house is, somehow arrived at the conclusion that as long as the service meets the Codes that were in existence at the time the house was built, and has 2 grounding methods (it has ground rods & water service grounds), then it doesn't need to bond to the new rebar. If we were installing a new service on the house (upgrade) then we would need to bond to the rebar.

Anyway it was quite a discussion you've had here, and had a lot of good points brought out. We'll stick with the AHJ recommendation.

 

[norcal]

I have a question along the lines of the OP, existing structure has a 3-wire 100A 1Ø feed from another structure, with one ground rod, all underground water lines are plastic, a addition is built in front of existing building which had a stub of rebar stubbed up in the then new addition to connect to the rebar in the footing but not connected to the existing grounding system, just left accessible, fast forward nearly 20 years & the original structure is razed & replaced with the existing electrical being retained, and with another concrete encased electrode in place, would both concrete encased electrodes be required to be bonded together, when one or the other is a qualifying electrode by themselves?


Just for the record, they were connected together as they were only about 3 feet apart, & the ground rod was left in place.

 

[Strathead]

Man guys, I didn't realize my post would create such a stir! To clarify, there will be a rebar system in the footing of the new small addition. It hasn't been installed yet as I speak. It would certainly be possible to run a ground from the panel to this new rebar and connect it at an accessible point in the new crawlspace, and may not be a bad idea. However the building inspector in Centennial, CO, where the house is, somehow arrived at the conclusion that as long as the service meets the Codes that were in existence at the time the house was built, and has 2 grounding methods (it has ground rods & water service grounds), then it doesn't need to bond to the new rebar. If we were installing a new service on the house (upgrade) then we would need to bond to the rebar.

Anyway it was quite a discussion you've had here, and had a lot of good points brought out. We'll stick with the AHJ recommendation.

Vindicated. That was my conclusion as well.

 

[shortcircuit2]

Man guys, I didn't realize my post would create such a stir! To clarify, there will be a rebar system in the footing of the new small addition. It hasn't been installed yet as I speak. It would certainly be possible to run a ground from the panel to this new rebar and connect it at an accessible point in the new crawlspace, and may not be a bad idea. However the building inspector in Centennial, CO, where the house is, somehow arrived at the conclusion that as long as the service meets the Codes that were in existence at the time the house was built, and has 2 grounding methods (it has ground rods & water service grounds), then it doesn't need to bond to the new rebar. If we were installing a new service on the house (upgrade) then we would need to bond to the rebar.

Anyway it was quite a discussion you've had here, and had a lot of good points brought out. We'll stick with the AHJ recommendation.

The building inspector is the AHJ out there?

Get his decision in writing.

You are ultimately responsible for the electrical installation to be compliant with the Code. Any issue arising from noncompliance with the Code poses liability upon yourself.

 

[iwire]

The building inspector is the AHJ out there?

Get his decision in writing.

You are ultimately responsible for the electrical installation to be compliant with the Code. Any issue arising from noncompliance with the Code poses liability upon yourself.

:thumbsup: