Just got My 2005 Code Book, looking at some changes, & it seems We are going to have some issues with grounding rebar in concrete.
Does anyone have any ideas on this yet, Would it be possible to have the concrete contractors leave a section stubed out above the pour ?
On jobs where there aren't any conduit runs to be incased, the EC may not be anywhere near the site when the pour occurs.
Also, it looks like Building Steel, Rebar, Metal Waterline etc will ALL be connected now.

I think what will have to happen is that if the EC isn't on site before or during the pour, the footing contractor will have to stub out a piece of rebar for the EC to tie onto. As far as the building steel, water line, etc., these were already required to be tied together.

I better make sure we're on the same page. You're talking about 250.50, right?

[This message has been edited by Ryan_J (edited 10-28-2004).]

I believe so, I don't have My Code book with Me, but I think that is correct.
What do You know about the coated rebar ???
That doesn't require bonding ??

Coated rebar is commonly used in bridge construction and has no metal contact with the concrete.

I have never seen it used in footers, but doesn't mean it isn't.

Roger

Our Cont Ed Instructor said it may be used more often, After 2005 is adopted, if the cost isn't too prohibitive.
Seems easy enough to just stub up a piece above the pour though....

The cost of epoxy coated steel, in my opinion, is never going to be less expensive than simply using normal steel and having to use it as an electrode.

The beauty when using the rebar as a grounding electrode is that the 2 ground rods are no longer required.
Also, just because the 2005 NEC is out, doesn't mean that your town or state has adopted it.

Now that it is going to be required everywhere . . . eventually. How does Florida do it now? I believe they require the Ufer throughout the state and the concrete contractor just turns up a piece of the rebar in the area of the service. I would like to hear how it's done in Florida now.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

They turn up a #5 in SW Florida. It comes up into the block cell and they knock a hole so the can get to it (usually sprayed green so it doesn't get poured solid when they do the dowels). The electrician pushes his #4 down from the panel to meet the #5, puts a bronze acorn on it and puts a blank cover over the hole.

It is my opinion that the intent of previous editions of the code was that the rebar system was supposed to be used as a portion of the grounding electrode already. The 2005 change from "If available on the premises" to "that are present at" is simply an effort to more concisely spell out what the intent was. There is nothing new here. We should have been connecting into the rebar system all along.

Actually Gary, there was an official interpretation of that very thing that stated that it was not required to break into the concrete to get at the rebar. This code change is indicating that it better be made accessible or someone will have to break up concrete after it is poured.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Here is a good article from IAEI concerning the concrete encased electrode.
http://www.iaei.org/magazine/01_d/johnston.htm

It is still my opinion that the intent of previous codes was that the rebar was supposed to be connected. An official interpretation to the contrary and then a rewording of the 2005 Code requiring it to be connected is an admission that the NFPA messed up the wording. If it is good for safety in 2005, it was also good for safety in 2002. For safety's sake, we should have been using the rebar all along.

Gary, I totally agree with this part of the paragraph but can’t agree with the first part. The Code Making Panel has agreed that the Code needed to be changed to take advantage of the premiere grounding electrode and was aware that the intent was not to require concrete to be broken to gain access before.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Maybe we are making two different points here.

My point is in reference to Megawatts statement of "it looks like Building Steel, Rebar, Metal Waterline etc will ALL be connected now." In previous codes, those things should have all been tied together anyway.

Now, if the concrete was already poured, then the interpretation was that you didn't have to break out the concrete to get to the rebar "because it wasn't considered available". Unfortunately the wording of the rule resulted in the Electrical Contractor himself having the de facto option to either do it or not do it. I do not believe this was ever the intent.

If it was a new building, and it had a new foundation, and if the EC neglected to make the connection, then he was shirking his responsibilities. By saying "we didn't have any conduits in the slab and we weren't there when it was poured" is a cop-out. The EC should have sent a man out there to make a connection that was approved for encasement in concrete. And if the AHJ let them get by without doing it, then shame on them too.

It will be interesting to see how the 2005 Code is interpreted and enforced on this issue. The new "if present" combined with the exception for existing slabs could certainly be abused. For instance: Is a new foundation poured the week before the EC shows up on the job considered "existing"?

Unfortunately there is a whole lot more "interpreting" and "dollar saving" going on than understanding of the theory and the purpose of the rule.

One more thought. The National Electrical Code applies to ALL crafts AND the GC, not just to electrical contractors. And since the rebar system is to be a part of the grounding electrode system, then the GC and the foundation contractor may certainly be responsible for providing a means of attachment if the EC isn't on the jobsite before the pour. I wonder if any electrical manufacturers will come up with a new product to help with this?

Comments?

It is hard if not imposable to make general statements like that on a National forum.

Enforcement is not up to the NEC it is up to each area that adopts it.

Here in MA we have strict licensing and permitting, the electrical inspector can not write up a failure to the GC, the GC can not pull an electrical permit.

Any electrical issues will be written to the electrical contractor on site.

Here the cement contractor or GC can not install a whip to the re-bar for the electrician.

Here a licensed EC would have to pull a permit and have the connection to the re-bar inspected before the pour.

My point is enforcement is very different around the country.

It is hard for me to understand how the NEC applies to a carpenter when they can not perform electric work in the first place.

Bob





[This message has been edited by iwire (edited 01-01-2005).]

Here in nebraska it is illeagal for any one not a licensed electrician to do ANY electrical work for another.
The GC or carpenter of concrete guy are therefore legally prohibited from doing electrical work.
All too often the GC will not have signed the electrical contract until after the footing is in. That is when the electrician is on the job site for the first time. If a connection to the rebar is availble then we attach for the ufer ground but if it is not we use other grounding methods. Busting up some one elses work especally a footing is not a good idea from a practacle and financial point of view.

Yeah, I thought about the licensing issue after I made the statement about the NEC applying to all crafts. (doh!) In most jurisdictions, anyone doing electrical work would need to be licensed.

Now, thinking of past practices, some rebar systems got tied in and some didn't. So the buildings that didn't get the rebar used as a part of the grounding electrode, are they any less safe than a building that did have it tied in?

Comments please?

So back to the original question... Is the rebar system going to HAVE to be tied in to the grounding electrode system wherever the 2005 NEC is enforced? Could the AHJ require a foundation to be chipped up to get to the rebar where the rebar was not tied in before the pour? Or is the exception for "existing buildings" going to make it optional?

Yes, all this is totally up to the AHJ, but I am looking beyond the wording and semantics and interpretations of the Code. Just exactly what should we be doing for safeties sake?

Note: Being new to the forum, I am slowly getting a feel for it. I realize that the majority here are the electricians and contractors who are dealing with the realities of the construction site and dealing with the AHJ and I totally respect that. Since that is not my capacity, I tend to view these things from a more theoretical aspect, "What should we be doing to make this as safe as possible?" and "Why does that code rule exist" instead of "What is the AHJ going to make us do?"

[This message has been edited by Gary S (edited 01-01-2005).]

Gary, you are not the only one that doesn’t work in the trade, I haven’t been in the trade since I let my license expire in 1979. So far, I haven’t seen anybody try to get rid of me. In my opinion, this provision will be abused a lot until we get past the rough spots. I think it will be easy for the concrete people to turn up a piece of rebar so that it will be accessible after the pour.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charlie Eldridge, Indianapolis, Utility Power Guy

Yes the concrete footings poured before the EC of his people show up are existing. After all it's there. If the EC does not have an existing contract, how do you tell the concrete guys to turn up a piece of rebar?
The only hope for this is the AHJ who may depending on local requirements inspect the footing before the pour. Rarely is this an electrical inspector. It would take the AHJ to make sure that this happens. Personally I doubt this will happen untill some one makes a big enough problem for the AHJ in an area to cause it to be required in the code that covers footings.

I appreciate your responses, and I am seeing further into this issue than I did before.

After maore thinking based on what you guys are saying: There are millions of single family dwellings, multi-family dwellings, commercial buildings, and industrial facilities that have been operating for decades without a Ufer grounding electrode and they have not had any safety related incidences because of the lack of the Ufer ground. So in reality and for safety it is pretty much optional whether to tie it in or not?

So does it really need to be mandatory considering the realities and logistics of the construction site?

"After all it's there. If the EC does not have an existing contract, how do you tell the concrete guys to turn up a piece of rebar?"
This is actually up to the GC to ensure that the rebar is made available to the EC. The way it is done here is they use a 36" "corner bar" snap tied to the #5 in the footer. This will come up in a block core which is knocked out for the EC and sprayed green so they won't pour it solid.

In Va., we are still in the dark ages as we just adopted and put into place the 2000 Va. Uniformed Statewide Building Code that incorporates the 1999 NEC as well as the IRC and others. However, many years ago, our residential inspection division we to "combination cross-trained inspectors" so we get one inspector to review the inspections before we can go on. My point here is that it will be easier for our combination inspector to tell the footing contractor that he either needs to stub up a piece of rebar or reject the inspection until the EC can be named and has an opportunity to stub up a bar to make up his ground. Seems this should eventually a detail on the footing plan and would not pass footing inspection in any juristictions until it is in place!

If we could get away from this union jurisdictional thinking it would not be that unreasonable that a steel guy could actually slide an acorn over a piece of rebar, get a #4 on the right side and tighten the bolt.
A structural inspector should be able to handle looking at that.
Unfortunately that is not the way it works, even in a right to work state like Florida.
When I built my pool I ended up with 2 inspectors at virtually every step. One looked at the rebar and another looked at the #8 bonded to it. When I mentioned to the boys on the Fl IEAI board that the same guys tied the rebar and put on the bonding they lost their minds, threatening $500 fines all around if they saw it happen.

Greg


For us in MA it has nothing to do with union non-union.

In MA that would require changing the law, only a licensed electrician can perform electric work and it must be inspected by an electrical inspector. The electrical inspectors in MA expect to see and approve the connection to the rebar if used.

I doubt any building inspector would want to perform electrical inspections anymore than an electrical inspector would want to check out building code compliance.

We are not talking about inspecting a fire pump controller at a nuke plant. This is one stinking acorn with a piece of wire under it.
Do you really think the guy the EC would free up to go put this on is any smarter than the guy who puts in the footer steel?

Do you think seeing if this is tight is beyond the abilities of the structural inspector?
At least he will be there looking in the hole. The electrical inspector will probably sign this off out the window of his truck

Hmmm...maybe our cross-trained inspectors are moving into the "not so dark ages..."

Greg Really I do understand what you are saying, it is a simple task and could be performed by any one that has hands.

That said you are not familiar with the inspection process here in MA.

There very few inspectors I have met in MA that will do a 'drive by' inspection. They get out and check the work....really.

Example; I recently took a rough inspection in an office remodel, the inspector looked in all approx. 400 outlet and switch boxes, sometimes with a flashlight to make sure my grounds where made up.

I also did a large job that had dozens of Cad welds to rebar, the inspector was out each day to look at them before the cement was poured. I actually tried to get him to sign off on the rest after the first couple of days...no way, he wanted to see each one.

99% of the time I must be there when he gets there, it would be a bad move to send a helper to take the inspection. If the inspector does not know the person has a license he will ask to see it.

We also have a separate State department of licensing that can stop by any job at any time and ask to see everyones license or apprentice card. (An apprentice must register with the state and carry their card)

What you are suggesting will never happen here in MA.

It's OK though as during the 2002 code cycle we had an amendment that basically said I do not need to connect to the footing if it is already poured when I get the job.

I do not know if that will remain in 2005.

Bob

Bob, here is the link to the MA 2005 proposals.
Check out the commentary on 250.50 I beleive it is on page 21. http://www.nema.org/stds/fieldreps/...e-2005-Massachusetts-Electrical-Code.pdf

Scott your the man, thanks for that link.

If I am reading it correctly we will have to use the footing for grounding.

It should get interesting, the GCs are going to have to learn not to pour footings without an electrician around.

Presently many times the company I work for is not even signed onto a project before the footings are poured.

It is very common for us to arrive with foundations and steel in place.

This 'learning' curve is going to be interesting to watch.

The shop will need to put something in our contracts that puts any costs associated with getting to the rebar entirely on the GC.

Bob

We license inspectors here but the trades don't carry apprentice cards, most will not even have green cards.
One guy in the whole company will have a license and he won't be on the job.
Actually the "footer" guy might have been an electrician last week anyway and may have more experience than the guy the EC would send for a trivial job.
Pools are always bonded by the pool steel company, just don't tell the inspectors ;-)
They really avoid that issue on Ufers by simply turning up a #5, clearly a "steel" task.
The only problem is they have a "dowel" turned up every 5 feet that gets tied to the "tie beam" on the top of the wall and those cells are poured solid so they have to make sure they don't pour the Ufer cell, hence the green paint.

Iwire.. I wish the inspectors here in colorado was real electricians. most are carpenters and anyone . They use combo inspectors. You dont need no experiance documentation at all. just take the icc test and then you are a building,plumber,electrical,etc. inspector depending on your test you take. It is supposed to be a 1 to 3 ratio here but it is more like 1 to 50. They have no compliance officers here and the "Inspectors" are afraid to card anyone. That leaves real journeyman electricians jobless here.And tons of new journeyman all over the place ! And the state does not check ratio "otherwise they would catch this 1 to 50 ratio very fast. In Seattle I always had to sign for my apprentice once a month and put my jw # on it. " 1 to 1 ratio there. And very stiff 5,000 dollar fines instead of the 25.00 or 50.00 here. Anyways, sounds like MA is the way it should be.
Always have the rebar guys stub up close to the main waterline closet to the bldg. and then get it inspected before pour and signed off.

Just venting a bit... Thanks !!

Here in Oregon I think the "Ufer" ground has been required at least since 1999 in the specialty code here. Apprenticeship and journeyman licensing is very very strict.
The person responsible for installing the rebar alwayse calls me or just stubs up a piece of rebar below my service disconnect. There are no wires or clamps buried in the concrete normaly.
Where the rebar stubs up we connect a rebar listed clamp OR a listed clamp for rebar and a with a lay in lug bolted to it for the size of grounding electrode conductor size we are using and then we install a 2 gang mud ring to a stud so the connection remains accessable after finish and later install a 2 gang blank cover plate.
I do not see anything in 2005 code handbook 250.50 or 250.52 (A)(3) that requires the grounding electrode conductor connection to rebar to be buried in the concrete.
there is nothing here that requires an licensed electrician to stub up that piece of rebar or to ensure it is tied to the other rebar before a pour.
There is an electrical inspection called in by the GC or whomever is responcible for the job where an electrical inspector comes out and inspects the rebar, installed by an non electrician using simply rebar and tie wire I imagine. The inspector places a orange tag on the rebar stub up and it then is acceptible to connect to it. If for some reason it is forgotton alternate methods are used and inspectors are disgrunteled. It is not permissable to cut the concrete to attach after the pour.
On one occasion the stub up ended up on the outside of the building and the inspector required the bonding connection clamp to the rebar be buried in epoxy with a pvc sleeve to protect the rebar from rusting away.
The 2005 NEC came into effect this month and I have a rebar stub up being inspected tommrrow. I went by the jobsite to make shure the stub up was near my service disconnect and found a half drivin ground rod holding up a 1/2" rebar stub up with 3 grounding clamps listed for direct burial and a hay wire piece of #4 cu clamped and duct-taped to the mess in the wrong spot, looking not very neat and workmanship like. I moved the 1/2" rebar stub up to my service disconnect spot and ignored the half driven ground rod, used the 3 direct burial clamps to attach the rebar to the main grid of rebar because no one was there and I could not find tiewire. (the clamps are UL listed for rebar and direct burial) If I had not driven by the jobsite after 5pm and seen the schanigins before the inspector the inspector would have issued a $5000 fine to the person whom drove a ground rod, installed wire and clamps without a license. If they just stub up rebar and thats it it is legal. If the inspector calls me tommrrow and askes about the ground rod in the middle of a stem wall form in the middle of nowhere connected to nothing I will have to tell him what I saw an did, since I know him personaly and he is a friend, he would at most issue a warning in this case.If he fails this inspection because the grounding electride conductor now has to be buried in the concrete I will post again tommrrow.