# Concrete Encased Electrode - outside building?



## Darren Emery (Oct 15, 2010)

Would you accept a CCE installed outside the building, at grade level, as shown in the pic?

View attachment 1404


View attachment 1404


/monthly_2010_10/572953de01396_UFERoutsidebelowsiding.jpg.e0bd1efe18f616c975e5de1f408f7899.jpg


----------



## Bootleg (Oct 16, 2010)

Is that a Ufer ground?

If the ground wire was in flex conduit I would.


----------



## chris kennedy (Oct 16, 2010)

That would be a violation indoors or outdoors. The piece of rebar that exits the footer does not meet the following requirements.



> 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.


Therefore that piece of bar is now a grounding electrode conductor and is in violation of the following.





> 250.62 Grounding Electrode Conductor Material.The grounding electrode conductor shall be of copper, aluminum, or copper-clad aluminum. The material selected shall be resistant to any corrosive condition existing at the installation or shall be suitably protected against corrosion. The conductor shall be solid or stranded, insulated, covered, or bare.


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Oct 16, 2010)

I don't know much about the Uber grounding but a lot was written on the old ICC boards that you can search.


----------



## peach (Oct 16, 2010)

concrete encased means CONCRETE ENCASED.. not attached to a piece of rebar sticking out of the foundation.


----------



## JBI (Oct 16, 2010)

New Hampshire has an excellent Technical Document on the subject that offers several methods as alternatives to meet the code requirement. How do I share the graphics from a PDF document?

*TECHNICAL BULLETIN*
​

*Application of 250.50, Grounding Electrode System and 250.52 (A) (3) Concrete-Encased Electrode*
​


September 9, 2005

The 2005 National Electrical Code (NFPA 70-2005), adopted by the State of New Hampshire on July 1,

2005, clarifies that all qualifying concrete-encased electrodes are to be used as part of the grounding

electrode system for a building or other structure’s electrical system unless the building or other structure is

existing. *The requirement does not mandate that a concrete encased electrode be installed*, but that it is

used when one is present as part of the building or other structures engineering design or actual construction.

As described in 250.52 (A) (3) a qualifying electrode:

1. Is encased by at least 2” of concrete and located within and near the bottom of a concrete foundation

or footing that is in direct contact with the earth.

2. Consists of at least 20’of bare or zinc galvanized or other electrically conductive coated steel

reinforcing bars or rods that are not less that ½” in diameter.

a. In our interpretation, multiple rods or bars that total at least 20’ in length are included.

b. The bars or rods shall be permitted to be bonded together by the usual tie wires or other

effective means.

Additionally:

3. No encapsulating non-conductive coatings, such as epoxy, are used for corrosion protection.

4. No vapor barriers or insulating material that effectively isolate the concrete footing or foundation

from the earth have been used.

This requirement is for new construction of buildings or other structures that have been designed to the 2005

National Electrical Code or are “design/build” and permitted after July 1, 2005. The requirement does not

apply to buildings or other structures that were approved to the 2002 or previous National Electrical Codes or

to existing buildings or other structures where just the service or other supply system is being upgraded. It

would, however, apply to an existing building or other structure where the construction of an addition, etc.,

involves a qualifying electrode and the service or other supply system is being upgraded as part of the

construction.

Where the above described electrode exists, the connection of a 4 AWG or larger copper grounding electrode

conductor to the steel electrode must be made using a device that is listed by an approved testing agency with

respect to its suitability for concrete encasement, if installed within the foundation or footing, for direct

burial where applicable and for connection to a steel reinforcing rod or bar.

There are several ways of making a connection to the electrode itself and the method of choice will be a

matter of design and coordination. The following illustrations and explanations are intended to aid in

understanding some common methods of connection and are not intended to be all inclusive.
​

*STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY*
​

Richard M. Flynn, Commissioner
​

*Division **of **Fire Safety*
​

*Office of the State Fire Marshal*
​

J. William Degnan, State Fire Marshal
​

*Bureau of Electrical Safety and Licensing*
​


Office: 2 Industrial Park Drive, Building 2, Concord, NH

Mailing Address: 33 Hazen Drive, Concord, N.H. 03305

603-271-3748, FAX 603-271-2257
​


Technical Bulletin, Concrete Encased Electrodes

Page 2
​


*Figure 1: *illustrates a 4 AWG or larger copper grounding electrode conductor that is insulated and has been

connected directly to the electrode within the foundation or footing. The connection fitting must be suitable

for concrete encasement and for attachment to the steel rod or bar. Sufficient conductor length must be left

to exit the wall in a convenient location for future connection by an irreversible connector, the exothermic

welding process or to be run directly to the appropriate equipment. The insulation on the conductor will

protect it from corrosion where it exits the concrete.
​


*Figure 2: *illustrates the same application as Figure 1 except a bare 4 AWG or larger copper grounding

electrode conductor has been used. In this case, a Rigid Nonmetallic Conduit (PVC) sleeve filled with

material satisfying the requirements of Section 110.11 has been installed. Filling the sleeve prevents the bare

conductor, the concrete and the air from contacting each other where the conductor exits the wall protecting

it from corrosion. Other methods of providing corrosion protection may also be used. As permitted in

Section 250.62, a grounding electrode conductor can be solid, stranded, insulated, covered or bare.
​


Technical Bulletin, Concrete Encased Electrodes

Page 3
​


*Figure 3: *illustrates an application where a rod or bar has been extended up through the concrete wall and

sill plate. This bar or rod will be left long enough to extend through the double plate and allow the

connection of the grounding electrode conductor. The advantages to this method are that the electrician can

make the connection to the rod or bar at any convenient time and it allows for future inspection of the

connection. Suitable corrosion protection, such as epoxy, has been provided for the rod or bar where it exits

the concrete.
​


*Figure 4: *illustrates an application where the rod or bar exits through the footing and the connection of the 4

AWG or larger grounding electrode conductor to the electrode will be below or within the concrete floor. As

in Figures 1 and 2 above, the connection fitting must be suitable for concrete encasement if it is within the

floor or for direct burial if below the floor and for connection to the steel rod or bar.
​


Technical Bulletin, Concrete Encased Electrodes

Page 4
​


*Figure 5: *illustrates an application where the electrode exits through the top of the footing. Similar to the

installation described in Figure 3, the advantages to this method are that the electrician can make the

connection to the rod or bar at any convenient time and it allows for future inspection of the connection.

Suitable corrosion protection, such as epoxy, has been provided for the rod or bar where it exits the concrete.

As noted above, these applications are not all inclusive and are only intended to describe some common

options. Through careful planning, coordination of trades and the influence of ingenuity other methods can

be developed and utilized.

The installation of a grounding electrode conductor, in this case to a concrete encased electrode, is part of an

electrical installation that is within the scope of RSA 319-C. Therefore, proper licensure is required for the

installation of the grounding electrode conductor including the connection to the electrode itself. Local

permitting and inspection requirements must also be considered and adhered to. In short, this may mean that

an inspection of the electrode may be required before the concrete is poured. If the process is not followed

the consequences could be severe, potentially resulting in a requirement to dismantle and rebuild a portion of

the foundation or footing.
​


----------



## JBI (Oct 16, 2010)

The last two paragraphs didn't fit...


Concrete-encased electrodes were developed over 50 years ago as a means of grounding ammunition

bunkers in the desert and have been used in many other jurisdictions around the country for grounding

electrical systems with a long history of superior performance with little or no maintenance. The soil

conditions found in many areas of the North Eastern United States can present a significant challenge with

respect to the grounding of electrical systems. The concrete encased electrode with its proven reliability in

difficult soil conditions represents a superior choice for these conditions. With that being said, the mandated

use is clearly in the interest of public safety.

The implementation of this requirement will dramatically change the coordination required between building

trades and inspections from what we have known in the past. Therefore, we must all do our part to make the
​application as smooth as possible.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 16, 2010)

UFER grounds are acceptable.  The concern here is that the exposed reinforcing steel is subject to corrosion and it is unclear how the piece of rebar is connected to the other other pieces of reinforcing steel embedded in the concrete


----------



## GHRoberts (Oct 17, 2010)

"Figure 3:

illustrates an application where a rod or bar has been extended up through the concrete wall and

sill plate. This bar or rod will be left long enough to extend through the double plate and allow the

connection of the grounding electrode conductor. The advantages to this method are that the electrician can

make the connection to the rod or bar at any convenient time and it allows for future inspection of the

connection. Suitable corrosion protection, such as epoxy, has been provided for the rod or bar where it exits

the concrete."

This certainly makes any fix to the perceived code violations in the photo easy.


----------



## JBI (Oct 17, 2010)

George, I'm not sure it would. "Figure 3" detail would result in the exposed rebar being inside, not outside of the building. Not sure epoxy would provide suitable long-term protection for the rebar in the OP.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 17, 2010)

I Believe that when copper is in contact with steel you will get accelerated corrosion.  What is better is to place a braided coper wire with no sheathing in the concrete and keep it seperate from the reingorcing in the footing.


----------



## Rio (Oct 17, 2010)

Mark K said:
			
		

> UFER grounds are acceptable.  The concern here is that the exposed reinforcing steel is subject to corrosion and it is unclear how the piece of rebar is connected to the other other pieces of reinforcing steel embedded in the concrete


Yeah, the Ufer has to be protected from the elements and enclosed in some fashion.  When we've done them we've used a 20' stick of #4, ran the end up so it would stick out of the plate and put an access panel on for inspection.

If they have documentation of the length of the Ufer maybe they could box it in somehow in a waterproof container.......................


----------



## jar546 (Oct 18, 2010)

First off, this is not a UFER in the picture.

2nd, I would like an official interpretation of this subject by the NFPA.  I am of the same opinion as the NH Technical Bulletin and that is how I enforce it.

Chris, I understand your position and know that this has been a pet peeve of yours for some time.  This is why I would love to see an official interpretation on this.  I see a lot of validity in your opinion but think you may be overthinking this one.


----------



## Darren Emery (Oct 18, 2010)

The great debate continues - opinions are mixed on whether the rebard from a CCE (UFER) can extend out of the footing and be exposed. There's a lot of debate on this issue at Mike Holt's NEC forum as well.  Many (including some above) argue that once the rebar exits the concrete, it's no longer part of the UFER, but is now the grounding electrode conductor.

We have always allowed the rebar to exit the footing or foundation wall, AS LONG as it is indoors, protected from the elements, and the listed clamp remains accessible.

In this situation, the UFER (or GEC if you prefer) was bent over, OUTSIDE the building, under the sill plate, and now is exposed to not only physical damgage, but also the rebar is exposed to the elements.

I've always worried about corrosion on the rebar - I think detail #3 from the NH article above is a great idea.


----------



## D a v e W (Oct 18, 2010)

Must say I have always verified 20' #4 bar vertical attached to bottom bar in footing and extended up through stem wall higher than the sill plate.

We are only looking for 20 ohms to ground or less, have the electrician prove it (simple to prove). Never seen one fail.... As for this one spray paint the rebar for protection, armor it if you believe it can be damage at its location.


----------



## GHRoberts (Oct 18, 2010)

JBI said:
			
		

> George, I'm not sure it would. "Figure 3" detail would result in the exposed rebar being inside, not outside of the building. Not sure epoxy would provide suitable long-term protection for the rebar in the OP.


Epoxy might not be the proper coating, but something is a proper coating. Talk with the AHJ about what type of "protection" he thinks is needed.


----------



## Darren Emery (Oct 18, 2010)

Sorry -  I didn't express myself clearly.  I meant that #3 would be good for us to implement around here all the time, when the UFER is in side the building.  The contractor on the OP will be cutting the sil and siding and bending that bar back inside the structure.


----------



## chris kennedy (Oct 18, 2010)

jar546 said:
			
		

> Chris, I understand your position and know that this has been a pet peeve of yours for some time.  This is why I would love to see an official interpretation on this.  I see a lot of validity in your opinion but think you may be overthinking this one.


Under-thinking is probably more applicable. I install as per the current wording of the code so as to make your job easier. I don't manipulate the code for ease of installation.



> Charlie’s Rule of Technical Reading It doesn’t say what you think it says, nor what you remember it to have  said, nor what you were told that it says, and certainly not what you  want it to say, and if by chance you are its author, it doesn’t say what  you intended it to say.  Then what does it say?  It says what it says.   So if you want to know what it says, stop trying to remember what it  says, and don’t ask anyone else.  Go back and read it, and pay attention  as though you were reading it for the first time.
> 
> Copyright © 2005, Charles E. Beck, P.E., Seattle, WA


----------



## Bootleg (Oct 18, 2010)

jar546 said:
			
		

> First off, this is not a UFER in the picture.2nd, I would like an official interpretation of this subject by the NFPA.  I am of the same opinion as the NH Technical Bulletin and that is how I enforce it.
> 
> Chris, I understand your position and know that this has been a pet peeve of yours for some time.  This is why I would love to see an official interpretation on this.  I see a lot of validity in your opinion but think you may be overthinking this one.


Jeff,

Why is this not a Ufer ground?

Just asking to learn what it is that makes the rebar in the picture not a Ufer ground.


----------



## JBI (Oct 18, 2010)

Chris, I've heard that rule before, still a god one. Problem is that sometimes two people can read the exact same thing and understand it differently. If your installs are code compliant, that does make our job easier, thank you. If a Code Official/Inspector disagrees? How do you handle it?


----------



## chris kennedy (Oct 19, 2010)

JBI said:
			
		

> If a Code Official/Inspector disagrees? How do you handle it?


With discussion.


----------



## D a v e W (Oct 19, 2010)

Yes discussion works for me....


----------



## jar546 (Oct 19, 2010)

Bootleg said:
			
		

> Jeff,Why is this not a Ufer ground?
> 
> Just asking to learn what it is that makes the rebar in the picture not a Ufer ground.


I am being technical because Ufer is a person and slang.  It is not in the NEC.  You can thank Herbert Ufer for his grounding method but they did not use his name in the NEC.


----------



## Robert Ellenberg (Oct 19, 2010)

Here is a link to the NH tech bullentin with drawings.  It can be saved and or printed as a PDF.

http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/firesafety/building/electrician/documents/050909_concreteencasedelectrodes.pdf


----------



## Bootleg (Oct 19, 2010)

Thank you, Robert.

 Very helpful link.


----------

