# Grounding electrode conductor



## skipharper (Oct 23, 2012)

Is the grounding electrode conductor required to be one continuous wire when connecting 2 ground rods seperated by not less then 6' or can with approved connectors, the wire between the first and second ground rods be a seperate wire. In other words contractor drove one rod and is required to drive a second. Does he need to replace the entire grounding elctrode conductor?


----------



## codeworks (Oct 23, 2012)

the gec must be continous, and , if it is spliced the splice must be irreversible 250.64 © 2008 nec


----------



## Gregg Harris (Oct 23, 2012)

skipharper said:
			
		

> Is the grounding electrode conductor required to be one continuous wire when connecting 2 ground rods seperated by not less then 6' or can with approved connectors, the wire between the first and second ground rods be a seperate wire. In other words contractor drove one rod and is required to drive a second. Does he need to replace the entire grounding elctrode conductor?


Does not need to be continuous between electrodes. Must be continuous from panel to first rod.


----------



## chris kennedy (Oct 23, 2012)

Gregg Harris said:
			
		

> Does not need to be continuous between electrodes. Must be continuous from panel to first rod.


Agreed......


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Oct 23, 2012)

It only needs to be continuous to the first rod.  250.53©

*E3608.2 Bonding jumper. *The bonding jumper(s) used to connect the grounding electrodes together to form the grounding electrode system shall be installed in accordance with Sections E3610.2, and E3610.3, shall be sized in accordance with Section E3603.4, and shall be connected in the manner specified in Section E3611.1.

Note where clamps are listed for single conductors.

Francis


----------



## skipharper (Oct 23, 2012)

As always, Thanks all!!


----------



## steveray (Oct 24, 2012)

Are not the two rods considered one electrode?....silly question, but I thought that is why we drove 2, so we didn't have to measure resistance (megger?) on one?


----------



## ICE (Oct 24, 2012)

I might be mistaken but I don't think Megger makes equipment for testing the resistance of a grounding electrode.


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 24, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> I might be mistaken but I don't think Megger makes equipment for testing the resistance of a grounding electrode.


They do: Megger

And 'megger' is becoming a colloquial term, like jell-o, kleenex and sheetrock.


----------



## ICE (Oct 24, 2012)

480sparky said:
			
		

> They do: MeggerAnd 'megger' is becoming a colloquial term, like jell-o, kleenex and sheetrock.


We considered accepting similar meters.  Then I observed a three point test and the NRTL explained that the three point test is the only reliable measure.  As a result, my superiors do not accept those meters.

But you are right about Meggar making the equipment.  The one I was asked to accept was made by Ideal....not cheap at all


----------



## Dennis (Oct 24, 2012)

The problem is that many people don't know that Megger is a brand name synonomous with the term Megaohmeter.  These are not used for testing ground rods but as ICE stated a three point earth ground tester is the tool for it thast is made by Megger as well as other companies.

I have pretty much done away with 2 rods and used the rebar in the footers.  Is that not being enforced-- NC does not enforce it but that is my MO.  I did a 3 point test with 1 rod and got 898 ohms, 2 rods- 89 ohms and the CEE was 13 ohms.  A world of difference so I do it that way and I wish they would enforce it here.


----------



## globe trekker (Oct 24, 2012)

Interesting topic..

FWIW, we do not enforce the CEE here, but IMO, we should!

Dennis (and others),

Do you have any links or pics. to demonstrate how an accurate 3-point test

should be performed?   Thanks!

.


----------



## globe trekker (Oct 24, 2012)

If we could start performing & documenting the high resistance at the 2 ground

rods, we might could start getting the CEE's installed.

I'm not a fan of the 2 ground rods.

.


----------



## Dennis (Oct 24, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> If we could start performing & documenting the high resistance at the 2 groundrods, we might could start getting the CEE's installed.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the 2 ground rods.
> 
> .


The NEC requires the CEE if the rebar is installed.  Thus on a new home it is required but NC amended it or just decided not to require it.  I hate that.


----------



## Dennis (Oct 24, 2012)

Three point testing is also called Fall of Potential and graphic is from* this site**.   *I think there is a 4 point tester also


----------



## globe trekker (Oct 24, 2012)

> The NEC requires the CEE if the rebar is installed. Thus on a new home it is required but NC amendedit or just decided not to require it. I hate that.


We do not enforce the CEE even though it is in our adopted 2008 NEC. It is not PC here to require

the contractors to actually comply with the adopted codes. It is what it is!  

.


----------



## pwood (Oct 24, 2012)

globe trekker said:
			
		

> We do not enforce the CEE even though it is in our adopted 2008 NEC. It is not PC here to requirethe contractors to actually comply with the adopted codes. It is what it is!


 not enforcing the code you are hired to enforce? someone needs to grow a couple in the interest of code enforcement.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 24, 2012)

"It is not PC here to require the contractors to actually comply with the adopted codes. It is what it is!"

That would totally suck going to work every day knowing you can't do your job. JMHO


----------



## gfretwell (Oct 24, 2012)

The Ufer is part of the footing inspection in SW Florida. The only discrepancy is whether they really need a 4ga copper in the foundation or whether they can turn up a rebar into the wall and make the connection when they set the service disconnect.

Copper theft has made the "4ga copper in the pour" requirement more flexible for some AHJs.

I have really not heard a good reason why the turned up rebar is a bad idea.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 24, 2012)

Dennis said:
			
		

> The NEC requires the CEE if the rebar is installed.  Thus on a new home it is required but NC amended it or just decided not to require it.  I hate that.


That is sort of pathetic that NC would amend that.  Makes no sense and it it cheaper than driving ground rods.  Stupidity at its finest.


----------



## Dennis (Oct 24, 2012)

There is no reason that the rebar cannot be turned up under the house in the crawl, (usually no cral in FA), or inside a wall.  The connection point must be accessible.  I have seen EC hook to the rebar underground but I understand that rebar is not rated for contact with earth and will rot away.

I always put 20' bare copper in the footer and also connect to the rebar.  I guess if the rebar ever gives out the copper is still an electrode with 20' in the footer.  I then bury the excess where the meter will be installed so no one steals the wire.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 24, 2012)

Dennis said:
			
		

> There is no reason that the rebar cannot be turned up under the house in the crawl, (usually no cral in FA), or inside a wall.  The connection point must be accessible.  I have seen EC hook to the rebar underground but I understand that rebar is not rated for contact with earth and will rot away.*I always put 20' bare copper in the footer and also connect to the rebar.*  I guess if the rebar ever gives out the copper is still an electrode with 20' in the footer.  I then bury the excess where the meter will be installed so no one steals the wire.


Yep!  I use to do the same thing and connect the rebar at 2 points too.


----------



## Dennis (Oct 24, 2012)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Yep!  I use to do the same thing and connect the rebar at 2 points too.


  You just had to one up me didn't you.


----------



## jar546 (Oct 24, 2012)

Dennis said:
			
		

> You just had to one up me didn't you.


No, just being honest.  If it makes you feel better, I used #4 bare copper stranded which probably won't last as long as solid copper   

If I wanted you to feel real good, I would tell you I used insulated THWN


----------



## ICE (Oct 24, 2012)

I always included a trap primer.

Beat that


----------



## jar546 (Oct 24, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> I always included a trap primer.Beat that


You clearly win


----------



## ICE (Oct 24, 2012)

Years ago, when I was just a kid, I worked at a factory that manufactured equipment which included an electron beam gun.  At one installation our equipment would get wigged out and lose control of the electron beam.  The problem was cured with a water hose at the grounding electrode.


----------



## Dennis (Oct 24, 2012)

ICE said:
			
		

> Years ago, when I was just a kid,


  You're just talking chronologically right.


----------



## chris kennedy (Oct 24, 2012)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> I have really not heard a good reason why the turned up rebar is a bad idea.


Well since 250.52(A)(3) requires the CEE to be encased in 2" of concrete, the portion stubbed up out of the concrete is no longer an electrode, it becomes a grounding electrode conductor. Violation of 250.62.


----------



## codeworks (Oct 24, 2012)

to globe trakker, fatboy and plywood, it does suck not being able to do your job. same deal here. not hired for experience, more for filler me thinks. uuugghh!


----------



## ICE (Oct 24, 2012)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Well since 250.52(A)(3) requires the CEE to be encased in 2" of concrete, the portion stubbed up out of the concrete is no longer an electrode, it becomes a grounding electrode conductor. Violation of 250.62.


Not around here.


----------



## pwood (Oct 24, 2012)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Well since 250.52(A)(3) requires the CEE to be encased in 2" of concrete, the portion stubbed up out of the concrete is no longer an electrode, it becomes a grounding electrode conductor. Violation of 250.62.


so what do you call that piece of wire that goes from the grounding electrode piece of rebar to the panel? i don't see a violation here,move on.


----------



## chris kennedy (Oct 24, 2012)

pwood said:
			
		

> so what do you call that piece of wire that goes from the grounding electrode piece of rebar to the panel? i don't see a violation here,move on.


Why that would be the GEC. Does the rebar stubbed up out of the concrete meet the requirements of 250.52(A)(3) or the requirements of 250.62? Not as the code is currently written. Do I think this is a big issue? No I don't, yet the code says what it says, read carefully then read again.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Oct 24, 2012)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Well since 250.52(A)(3) requires the CEE to be encased in 2" of concrete, the portion stubbed up out of the concrete is no longer an electrode, it becomes a grounding electrode conductor. Violation of 250.62.


(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode. A concrete-encased electrode shall consist of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of either (1) or (2):

    One or more bare or zinc galvanized or other electrically conductive coated steel reinforcing bars or rods of not less than 13 mm (½ in.) in diameter, installed in one continuous 6.0 m (20 ft) length, or if in multiple pieces connected together by the usual steel tie wires, exothermic welding, welding, or other effective means to create a 6.0 m (20 ft) or greater, length; or

    Bare copper conductor not smaller than 4 AWG

    Metallic components shall be encased by at least 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete and shall be located horizontally within that portion of a concrete foundation or footing that is in direct contact with the earth or within vertical foundations or structural components or members that are in direct contact with the earth. If multiple concrete-encased electrodes are present at a building or structure, it shall be permissible to bond only one into the grounding electrode system.

    Informational Note: Concrete installed with insulation, vapor barriers, films or similar items separating the concrete from the earth is not considered to be in “direct contact” with the earth.

Chris, what part of this determines that the rebar turned upwards and bonded above ground dictates that the vertical section is to be determined to be the "Grounding Electrode Conductor"?

As long as at least 20 feet of it is encased in at least 2 inches of concrete is where the grounding in direct contact with the earth will take place. Nothing precludes that when it exits the concrete it will no longer conduct.

Should we consider a water line in contract with at least 10 feet of earth that where it exits, it then becomes the Grounding Electrode Conductor?

250.70 Methods of Grounding and Bonding Conductor Connection to Electrodes. The grounding or bonding conductor shall be connected to the grounding electrode by exothermic welding, listed lugs, listed pressure connectors, listed clamps, or other listed means. Connections depending on solder shall not be used. Ground clamps shall be listed for the materials of the grounding electrode and the grounding electrode conductor and, where used on pipe, rod, or other buried electrodes, shall also be listed for direct soil burial or concrete encasement. Not more than one conductor shall be connected to the grounding electrode by a single clamp or fitting unless the clamp or fitting is listed for multiple conductors. One of the following methods shall be used:

    A pipe fitting, pipe plug, or other approved device screwed into a pipe or pipe fitting

    A listed bolted clamp of cast bronze or brass, or plain or malleable iron

    For indoor communications purposes only, a listed sheet metal strap-type ground clamp having a rigid metal base that seats on the electrode and having a strap of such material and dimensions that it is not likely to stretch during or after installation

    An equally substantial approved means


----------



## 480sparky (Oct 24, 2012)

Dennis said:
			
		

> The problem is that many people don't know that Megger is a brand name synonomous with the term Megaohmeter.


Kleenex

Jell-O

Sheetrock

Aspirin

Linoleum

Thermos

Zipper

Dry Ice

Escalator

Yo-yo

Videotape

Phonograph

Heroin

Cellophane

Laundromat

Mimeograph

Touch Tone

AstroTurf

Crock Pot

Jacuzzi

Photoshop

Q-tip

Super Glue

Muzak

TiVo

Zerox

White-out

Tylenol

Taser

Saran Wrap

Realtor

Jeep

Hula Hoop

Memory Stick

Polaroid

Sharpie

Tupperware

Super Glue

Google

Christmas Seals

Dumpster

Dictaphone

Lava Lamp

Band-Aid

Adrenalin

Jet Ski

Styrofoam

KoolAid

Matchbox

Scotch Tape

Post-It


----------



## chris kennedy (Oct 24, 2012)

Gregg Harris said:
			
		

> (3)Chris, what part of this determines that the rebar turned upwards and bonded above ground dictates that the vertical section is to be determined to be the "Grounding Electrode Conductor"?
> 
> As long as at least 20 feet of it is encased in at least 2 inches of concrete is where the grounding in direct contact with the earth will take place. Nothing precludes that when it exits the concrete it will no longer conduct.


How does the part of the rebar exiting the concrete meet the requirements of a CEE???



> Should we consider a water line in contract with at least 10 feet of earth that where it exits, it then becomes the Grounding Electrode Conductor?


You should consider it the GEC and it meets the requirements of 250.62 doesn't it.



> 250.62 Grounding Electrode Conductor Material. The grounding electrode conductor shall be of copper, aluminum,
> 
> or copper-clad aluminum. The material selected shall
> 
> ...


Your water pipe would fit the description of a bare copper conductor would it not?


----------



## Dennis (Oct 24, 2012)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> Well since 250.52(A)(3) requires the CEE to be encased in 2" of concrete, the portion stubbed up out of the concrete is no longer an electrode, it becomes a grounding electrode conductor. Violation of 250.62.


Chris are you saying that I cannot have a 10 foot ground rod that is driven in 9' with one foot sticking out of the ground and my GEC connected to this pipe is not compliant....?

Same scenario... I believe you are incorrect but I will look for the wording when I get a sec


----------



## Dennis (Oct 24, 2012)

Dennis said:
			
		

> Chris are you saying that I cannot have a 10 foot ground rod that is driven in 9' with one foot sticking out of the ground and my GEC connected to this pipe is not compliant....?Same scenario... I believe you are incorrect but I will look for the wording when I get a sec


It is not in the code but there was an ROP (report on Proposal) that stated this as an response



> Panel Statement: Only the portion of an electrode that is in contact with the earth can be called an electrode. The exposed portion of the rebar could be used as a connection point but cannot be considered as the electrode.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Oct 24, 2012)

chris kennedy said:
			
		

> How does the part of the rebar exiting the concrete meet the requirements of a CEE??? You should consider it the GEC and it meets the requirements of 250.62 doesn't it.
> 
> Your water pipe would fit the description of a bare copper conductor would it not?


It is already listed as a Grounding Electrode under 250.52

250.52 Grounding Electrodes.

(A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding.

(1) Metal Underground Water Pipe. A metal underground water pipe in direct contact with the earth for 3.0 m (10 ft) or more (including any metal well casing bonded to the pipe) and electrically continuous (or made electrically continuous by bonding around insulating joints or insulating pipe) to the points of connection of the grounding electrode conductor and the bonding conductor(s) or jumper(s). if installed.

 The conductor shall be solid or stranded, insulated, covered, or bare. It does not say hollow. So in sizing it for the Grounding Electrode Conductor using 250.66 what size would it be listed under?


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Oct 25, 2012)

250.68 & 250.70 This method has been approved when it is not subject to corrosion.

How often do you see the metal post or columns in basements and garages; including braced wall steel devices taken advantage of as a grounding electrode per 250.52(A)(2) items (2) & (4)?






Francis


----------



## ICE (Oct 25, 2012)

Gregg Harris said:
			
		

> It is already listed as a Grounding Electrode under 250.52250.52 Grounding Electrodes.
> 
> (A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding.
> 
> ...


My father worked on a particle accelerator that had copper tubes for conductors.  Water was fed through the tubes to keep them from melting.


----------



## Gregg Harris (Oct 25, 2012)

Francis Vineyard said:
			
		

> 250.68 & 250.70 This method has been approved when it is not subject to corrosion. How often do you see the metal post or columns in basements and garages; including braced wall steel devices taken advantage of as a grounding electrode per 250.52(A)(2) items (2) & (4)?
> 
> Francis Good example of "access" It is hard to tell from the picture, but the bonding conductor should be at the base of the acorn opposite of the set screw.
> 
> ...


 Francis Good example of "access" It is hard to tell from the picture, but the bonding conductor should be at the base of the acorn opposite of the set screw. It appears to be on the side.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Oct 25, 2012)

Gregg that is correct; can see how the clamp is offset to the side.  It was taken from a home inspection forum, my intent was to show acceptance by other AHJ.

A couple of weeks ago I took a picture of a rebar protruding from the top of basement foundation in a townhouse basement with the GEC clamped to it.  Apparantly I must have deleted the photo; it was an ugly example because the rebar was bent over instead of cut to length to allow clearance below the floor deck.

Francis


----------



## gfretwell (Oct 26, 2012)

You are reenacting the debate that I have heard dozens of times about the turned up rebar. That is why I said some AHJs are OK with it

Usually it ends up with what do you do if the copper that was there at the footer inspection, is gone when they come to set the panel. The Ufer is clearly not "available" at that point. You will have trouble making the installer chip up the foundation to get to the rebar (which brings up it's own engineering problems) so you end up with 2 rods, a clearly inferior electrode to the turned up rebar.

That is right up there with "classified breakers" in starting a fight at an IAEI meeting.


----------



## pwood (Oct 26, 2012)

That is right up there with "classified breakers" in starting a fight at an IAEI meeting.

 ground up, ground down:mrgreen:


----------



## Darren Emery (Oct 26, 2012)

Clearly ground up.  And if you think otherwise, you must be a heathen.


----------



## pwood (Oct 26, 2012)

Mr. Heathen to you, sir!


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Oct 26, 2012)

Now there's an answer to this dilemma http://forums.mikeholt.com/showthread.php?t=91533

Francis


----------



## gfretwell (Oct 27, 2012)

I did hear one solution to the turned up rebar problem that seemed to work. Once you get the wall built and the panel is set, connect with a copper #4, pour that cell solid with concrete up past the concrete listed acorn. Then the rebar is encased in 2" of concrete.


----------



## Dennis (Oct 27, 2012)

I don't have an issue with this at all as I install it in the footer.  I realize it means another trip but I have trained my builders on what to do so I give them the material if the job is a long way from home.  Inspectors are fine with this as long as it is installed correctly.


----------



## gfretwell (Oct 27, 2012)

The Ufer has been standard here for so long that the concrete guys know to do it and the structural inspector signs it off before the pour. I was putting an addition on my house and the concrete guys put in a Ufer, even though this was part of the existing building. They just did it put of habit. I ended up tying it back to my grounding system anyway. You can't have too much ground.


----------



## chris kennedy (Oct 27, 2012)

gfretwell said:
			
		

> The Ufer has been standard here for so long that the concrete guys know to do it and the structural inspector signs it off before the pour.


In South Florida East Coast we still install and get signed off by the EI.


----------



## ICE (Oct 28, 2012)

In my part of the jungle, the EI and the SI R I...along with the PI,MI and GI...aye yi yi


----------



## jwelectric (Dec 17, 2012)

North Carolina amended it to say if available instead of if present.

On residential and small commercial jobs it is not unusual for the footer and foundation to be in before the electrical contract is ever let out and the DOI says that there would be too many issues of cutting the footer in order to establish the CEE should the foundation be in place. In most big commercial and industrial installations of a new building the CEE is installed.

As to the upturned rebar, in the 2011 edition of the NEC we are told in 250.64 that the grounding electrode conductor shall be copper, aluminum or copper clad aluminum. 250.68© gives us two exceptions to this with a metal water pipe and the steel of a building. As defined a grounding electrode is a direct connection to earth. Any part of a rebar that is upturned and not in contact with earth would not be electrode nor would it fit into the grounding path of 250.64.

Sometimes in the electrical trade we have something we call the standard of practice that is nowhere close to being code compliant. This upturned rebar is just one of several that I am aware of.


----------



## steveray (Dec 17, 2012)

Shouldn't the upturned rebar be OK as it is tied to the footing rebar with the usual steel tie wires? And didn't the language change a bit from my 05 NEC where it says nearest the bottom to something like anywhere you can hit it?



			
				jwelectric said:
			
		

> North Carolina amended it to say if available instead of if present.On residential and small commercial jobs it is not unusual for the footer and foundation to be in before the electrical contract is ever let out and the DOI says that there would be too many issues of cutting the footer in order to establish the CEE should the foundation be in place. In most big commercial and industrial installations of a new building the CEE is installed.
> 
> As to the upturned rebar, in the 2011 edition of the NEC we are told in 250.64 that the grounding electrode conductor shall be copper, aluminum or copper clad aluminum. 250.68© gives us two exceptions to this with a metal water pipe and the steel of a building. As defined a grounding electrode is a direct connection to earth. Any part of a rebar that is upturned and not in contact with earth would not be electrode nor would it fit into the grounding path of 250.64.
> 
> Sometimes in the electrical trade we have something we call the standard of practice that is nowhere close to being code compliant. This upturned rebar is just one of several that I am aware of.


----------



## ICE (Dec 17, 2012)

steveray said:
			
		

> Shouldn't the upturned rebar be OK as it is tied to the footing rebar with the usual steel tie wires? And didn't the language change a bit from my 05 NEC where it says nearest the bottom to something like anywhere you can hit it?


2008 NEC

250.52(A)(3) Concrete-Encased Electrode. An electrode encased

by at least 50 mm (2 in.) of concrete, located horizontally

near the bottom or vertically, and within that portion of a

concrete foundation or footing that is in direct contact with

the earth, consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of one or more

bare or zinc galvanized or other electrically conductive

coated steel reinforcing bars or rods of not less than 13 mm

(½ in.) in diameter, or consisting of at least 6.0 m (20 ft) of

bare copper conductor not smaller than 4 AWG.

Reinforcing bars shall be permitted to be bonded together

by the usual steel tie wires or other effective means. Where

multiple concrete-encased electrodes are present at a

building or structure, it shall be permissible to bond only

one into the grounding electrode system.


----------



## codeworks (Dec 17, 2012)

page 239 of the 2011 nec handbook covers in real nice detail. commentray, code and pictures , too!


----------



## jwelectric (Dec 17, 2012)

codeworks said:
			
		

> page 239 of the 2011 nec handbook covers in real nice detail. commentray, code and pictures , too!


To qualify as a grounding electrode, the horizontal or vertical installation of the steel reinforcing rod or the 4 AWG bare copper conductor within the concrete encasement is to be in one continuous 20 ft length so that there is a 20 ft long electrode in contact with the earth. Shorter lengths of reinforcing rod can be connected together to form an electrode 20 ft or longer using the connection methods identified in this requirement. Section 250.52(A)(3) only requires that a single concrete-encased electrode be incorporated into the grounding electrode system. Some buildings or structures may have discontinuous segments of a footing or foundation that individually qualify as grounding electrodes per this section, and once one has been bonded to the grounding electrode system, the remaining ones are exempt from any bonding or grounding requirements. Exhibit 250.23 shows an example of a concrete-encased electrode embedded horizontally. As indicated in the informational note, direct contact with the earth means that there is no medium between the concrete and the earth that impedes the grounding connection or insulates the concrete from being in direct contact with the earth.


----------



## gfretwell (Dec 17, 2012)

One remediation I have heard of if an inspector did say the upturned rebar was not poured in the concrete was to pour that cell of the block solid, up past the copper connection after the house was dried in.

The reason they started this in the first place was a piece of 4 ga sticking out of the foundation would not usually survive the building process.


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 18, 2012)

Q1) If the CEE is in the footing and insulation is installed on one or both sides of the footing but not on the bottom side would that be allowed by code?

Q2) The code does not say that a CEE thats 1/2 inch x 20ft long can't be bent, like in the corner or a step footing, would that be allowed?

pc1


----------



## gfretwell (Dec 18, 2012)

The question comes up here with the Visqueen under the slab on a mono slab footer. They have to stop the Visqueen before they get to the bottom of the footer "bell".


----------



## codeworks (Dec 18, 2012)

pc, yes to both your questions. #1, as long as the bottom of the footting, is in contact with the earth, and the steel ( or cee attached thereto) is in the bottom, it's good. to # 2, yes , it can be bent, nowhere does it say it has to be straight, so long as its a minimum of 20 feet . irf you have access to a nec handbook check thast out. i have 2005 nec handbook, and a 2011 here, and they both provide good descriptive text and pics


----------



## Dennis (Dec 18, 2012)

The slab doesn't really come into play for a CEE.   I have seen some contractors who want to use the slab but that would not be code compliant.  The footer as stated in the post above by codeworks is fine.


----------

