• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Splicing a broken CEE condcuctor

jar546

jar546

CBO
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
12,973
Location
Not where I really want to be
So here is the deal. Somehow I found this wonderful broken connection buried in the ground below the meter base of a new service installation.

There was a new conductor run from the disco to the ground where it terminated on, well,.........dirt.

As I dug, I found the end that came out of the concrete that was now not long enough to make it to the disconnect. I am told the plan is to install a ground rod and use that to connect the two with an acorn (probably 2)

Is this an acceptable method??

Current NEC in Florida applies, I think 2008
 
Jeff,

Can you verify what is actually in the ground (i.e. - the CEE)? If not, wouldn't 2 ground rods be required?

.
 
IMO I would say no since the ground rod is only as good as a #6. The concrete encased electrode needs to be #4 unless the service is 100 amps
 
Dennis a ground rod only requires a #6 but a larger conductor can be installed. I would say it would be alright.

On one of the slides by the IAEI there is a rod between the service and building steel that has a 3/0 landed on it
 
Also look at 250.66 (A)

(A) Connections to Rod, Pipe, or Plate Electrodes.Where the grounding electrode conductor is connected to rod, pipe, or plate electrodes as permitted in 250.52(A)(5) or (A)(7), that portion of the conductor that is the sole connection

to the grounding electrode shall not be required to be larger than 6 AWG copper wire or 4 AWG aluminum wire.
Click to expand...
 
jwelectric said:
Dennis a ground rod only requires a #6 but a larger conductor can be installed. I would say it would be alright. On one of the slides by the IAEI there is a rod between the service and building steel that has a 3/0 landed on it
Click to expand...
What about what I quoted on 250.66. This was brought up in Raleigh and I was told it was a no-no
 
Nevermind I believe you are correct. I think they meant the rod was okay as long as the wire to the rod was not #6.
 
So now a technical question is this. In lieu of a test to prove 25 ohms or less, is a supplemental rod required?

Nevermind the fact that it would be useless, would it be required?
 
I am sorry I should have given an article 250.53(D)(2) A metal water pipe as an electrode must be supplemented by one of the methods in 250.52(A)(2)-(A)(7). No other electrode, except a rod that doesn't get 25 ohms, requires a supplemental electrode.
 
It appears that a lack of protection for the GEC resulted in this situation. Will that be addressed?
 
ICE said:
It appears that a lack of protection for the GEC resulted in this situation. Will that be addressed?
Click to expand...
Good question. This situation is exactly why we approve the rebar turned up inside the building, with connecting point inside and protected. I know - a lot of debate on that issue (is it a CEE, is it a GEC, is it even allowed?)
 
Darren Emery said:
Good question. This situation is exactly why we approve the rebar turned up inside the building, with connecting point inside and protected. I know - a lot of debate on that issue (is it a CEE, is it a GEC, is it even allowed?)
Click to expand...
No! .
 
jwelectric said:
No! .
Click to expand...
It will be in the 2014 NEC. Here is what 250.68©(3) will say,

(3) A concrete encased electrode of either the conductortype, reinforcing rod or bar installed in accordance with

250.52(A)(3) extended from its location within the concrete

to an accessible location above the concrete shall

be permitted.
Click to expand...
Chris
 
ICE said:
You didn't have to say that
Click to expand...
Sure - I didn't HAVE to - but it seemed warranted. When someone posts a pretty strong NO in response to a procedure my office follows on a less than precise portion of the code, I see it as an opportunity to learn. Thus - the request for more info!
 
Darren Emery said:
Thus - the request for more info!
Click to expand...
I was teasing. Your sure to hear plenty from that guy and the delivery may be something to see.....or maybe not.
 
Darren Emery said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
Right now the NEC has no provisions for allowing the use of the rebar outside the footing as a connection point for the grounding electrode conductor. It is often allowed and there really is no reason to not allow it and as Chris stated it will be officially allowed in 2014.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top