# Ufer connection



## erics37 (May 7, 2009)

*250.68(A) Accessibility.* All mechanical elements used to terminate
a grounding electrode conductor or bonding jumper to
a grounding electrode shall be accessible.

_Exception No. 1: An encased or buried connection to a
concrete-encased, driven, or buried grounding electrode
shall not be required to be accessible._

Take that as you will. Your inspector needs to give you a code reference too cause there's nothing in there about rusty rebar.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

220wire said:


> Have a ufer ground problemo, inspector says that #5 rebar sticking out of fondation will rust off and cannot make the ufer connection outside of the foundation. I can't find anything in the code that requires the connection to be made inside the footing. Plan is to either cadweld or irreversable crimp the GEC to the rebar.


Is the re-bar turned up inside of a wall in the building or outside exposed to moisture and the weather?

Chris


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

220wire said:


> Plan is to either cadweld or irreversable crimp the GEC to the rebar.


An acorn would work just fine.


----------



## 220wire (Aug 18, 2008)

It's turned outside the foundation


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

220wire said:


> It's turned outside the foundation


Rebar will degrade if it is install outside exposed to the elements.


----------



## Going_Commando (Oct 1, 2011)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Rebar will degrade if it is install outside exposed to the elements.


Not much for elements other than heat and wind in AZ. I would sprait it with cold galvinizing compound and call it good down there, but im a hack like that.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Dennis Alwon said:


> Rebar will degrade if it is install outside exposed to the elements.


Agreed.

Chris


----------



## Bbsound (Dec 16, 2011)

220wire said:


> It's turned outside the foundation


Pour a bag of quickcrete on top of it


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

raider1 said:


> Agreed.


 But is it a code violation?


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

I think you could say 110.11 might be violated.

110.11 Deteriorating Agents. Unless identified for use in
the operating environment, *no conductors* or equipment
shall be located in damp or wet locations; where exposed to
gases, fumes, vapors, liquids, or other agents that have a
deteriorating effect on the conductors or equipment; or
where exposed to excessive temperatures.......

That is if the re-bar is actually a grounding electrode *conductor*.

I can't remember the exact section but ACI doesn't permit re-bar exposed as the OP is saying.

Pete


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

so what options does the inspector have here 20/1 ?

~CS~


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Big John said:


> But is it a code violation?


Yes.

250.68 does not permit an exposed section of re-bar to be used to connect the GEC to the CEE.

To qualify as a Concrete encased electrode the reinforcing steel must be encased in at least 2" of concrete. 

With the addition of 250.68(C) in the 2011 NEC that specifically allows interior metal water piping and the structural frame of the building to be used to extend and connect the GEC to the electrode it seems that the use of a section of re-bar to do the same with a UFER ground would not be permitted.

Chris


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Pete m. said:


> I think you could say 110.11 might be violated.
> 
> 110.11 Deteriorating Agents. Unless identified for use in
> the operating environment, *no conductors* or equipment
> ...


I run into this all the time on jobs, have tried to explain it to the _dumber-than-a-bag-of-crete_ guys

i like to be there between the grid & pour

If i'm not, who would you say is responsible Pete?

~CS~


----------



## Big John (May 23, 2010)

raider1 said:


> Yes.
> 
> 250.68 does not permit an exposed section of re-bar to be used to connect the GEC to the CEE....


 I don't see how to 250.68 prohibits that.

But looking further, I agree with you that all the conductive parts of the electrode need to be buried in concrete per 250.52(A)(3):


> *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.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

So it's jackhammer time?

~CS~


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

I think the issue that confuses things is that the rebar is often allowed if it is in a crawl space or inside a wall which has access to the clamp.

The argument is that once the rebar leaves the concrete it is no longer an electrode but the rebar itself is not allowed as a grounding electrode conductor. Hence the problem. I thought there was a proposal at one time to get it changed but it never made it. I thought it did make it but I have never been able to find it so I assume it didn't get anywhere


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Big John said:


> I don't see how to 250.68 prohibits that.
> 
> But looking further, I agree with you that all the conductive parts of the electrode need to be buried in concrete per 250.52(A)(3):


250.68 deals with the connection of the grounding electrode conductor to the grounding electrode.

250.68(C) permits a short section of interior metal water piping or the structural frame of a building to extend and connect the grounding electrode conductor to the grounding electrode.

Now since we have determined that to qualify as an electrode re-bar must be encased in at least 2" of concrete. So the section of re-bar that extends out of the footing or foundation is not an electrode and since 250.68 does not specifically address extending the grounding electrode conductor to the electrode by a short section of re-bar I don't see how it is compliant with 250.68.

Chris


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

> I don't see how it is compliant with 250.68.


And i don't see why any electrician under God's good sun should be responsible for having to deal with this AFTER the pour, if his intent was to do a proper install

~CS~


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

raider1 said:


> 250.68 deals with the connection of the grounding electrode conductor to the grounding electrode.
> 
> 250.68(C) permits a short section of interior metal water piping or the structural frame of a building to extend and connect the grounding electrode conductor to the grounding electrode.
> 
> ...


It doesn't make much sense to allow a 3/4" galv. driven pipe to qualify as a GE and permit the GEC to be connected outside , above grade, exposed to the elements, but not allow a 1/2" (ufer) piece of rebar to do essentially the same thing.

250.53 Grounding Electrode System Installation. 

*(A)* *Rod, Pipe, and Plate Electrodes.* Rod, pipe, and plate electrodes shall meet the requirements of 250.53(A)(1) through (A)(3). 

*(1)* *Below Permanent Moisture Level.* If practicable, rod, pipe, and plate electrodes shall be embedded below permanent moisture level. Rod, pipe, and plate electrodes shall be free from nonconductive coatings such as paint or enamel


What do you think would last longer? GRC or rebar?
Rebar is used by surveyors to mark boundaries, because it last so long.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Semi-Ret Electrician said:


> It doesn't make much sense to allow a 3/4" galv. driven pipe to qualify as a GE and permit the GEC to be connected outside , above grade, exposed to the elements, but not allow a 1/2" (ufer) piece of rebar to do essentially the same thing.
> 
> 250.53 Grounding Electrode System Installation.
> 
> ...


Doesn't matter what I think, it matters what CMP 5 thinks:thumbsup:

Chris


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

raider1 said:


> Doesn't matter what I think, it matters what CMP 5 thinks:thumbsup:
> 
> Chris


You mean what the manufacturers tell them to think.

Why worry about clarifying grounding issues that are pretty common when you could spend all your time instituting code to make companies lots of money!


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

HackWork said:


> Why worry about clarifying grounding issues that are pretty common when you could spend all your time instituting code to make companies lots of money!


Because clarifying it means more that ONE trade is involved Hax

At least the state of Vermont issued a notice to most of the big 'crete heads 

~CS~


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> Because clarifying it means more that ONE trade is involved Hax
> 
> At least the state of Vermont issued a notice to most of the big 'crete heads
> 
> ~CS~


Steve,

As you well know the enforcement of the code varies widely from State to State and from town to town, burg to burg, village to village... 

When an electrician obtains a permit for a new service in a structure and that structure's footing or foundation contains re-bar that qualifies as a grounding electrode it is ultimately the electricians responsibility, right or wrong, independent of circumstance, to follow the requirements of the NEC as adopted by where the work is performed.

So, yes, at times it could mean breaking out the jackhammer.

Pete


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

raider1 said:


> Doesn't matter what I think, it matters what CMP 5 thinks:thumbsup:
> 
> Chris


I would have loved to listen to the argument.


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

220wire said:


> It's turned outside the foundation


I've never seen a Ufer outside the foundation. Usually stubbed up through basement floor in panel area. I've never been asked to terminate it in the concrete either. I think this argument could go on forever like grounds down and screws horizontal!!!


----------



## wendon (Sep 27, 2010)

I still say the code is too murky on this issue. It says that the metallic components shall be encased by at least 2" of concrete. If the 20' section of rebar is encased in at least 2" of concrete, I would say it's good enough to stub a piece of rebar off the 20' piece and connect to that. I think the AHJ usually decides this one because in our area it's never an issue. The only issue I've heard of is where one of the inspectors asks for a listed clamp to connect the stubout to the 20' piece of rebar and he always get's shot down because the code plainly states that you can use tie wires. The other interesting thing is why can't you just use the typical two ground rods if the ufer doesn't get installed? 250.52 (A) says "Electrodes Permitted for Grounding" then it lists the different types.


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

True Wendon. The electrician when the rebar/slab is poured may not even be known. So, wouldn't it be better if the slab inspector looked for the correct arrangement and maybe took a picture for the electrician & electrical inspector? The BI could even refuse to come out until the EI signed off on the UFER.

We help out the building inspector by installing/inspecting the correct smokes/co's?

And if the rebar was not connected or fiberglass-concrete was poured that's not the end of the world. Or there is no CW ground because PEX was used, just do the other GE's.

I'd say if the rebar ends up outside, for any number of reasons, hook up what you've got and move on. A lot of smart folks think earth ground is not even needed.

OK CMP 5, time to reconsider.


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Pete m. said:


> Steve,
> 
> As you well know the enforcement of the code varies widely from State to State and from town to town, burg to burg, village to village...
> 
> ...


I would say you're wrong. Jack hammering a foundation, and the potential of wreaking its support of the building far out weight connecting a ground to the rebar. I would tell the inspector( and have) it's unavailable.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

backstay said:


> I would say you're wrong.


And I have no problem with that.

When the wording changed from "available" to "present" in the NEC and Ohio adopted that edition, inspectors and contractors alike were scrambling to come up with solutions when the re-bar got missed.

The requirement has been in effect long enough now that I can't remember the last time it was an issue.



> Jack hammering a foundation, and the potential of wreaking its support of the building far out weight connecting a ground to the rebar.


Possibly but certainly not in all cases.



> I would tell the inspector( and have) it's unavailable.


And this inspector would reply; "It is a requirement that has no exceptions for poor planning on someone elses part. If you can provide documentation from a structural engineer registered in the State of Ohio that by removing the necessary amount of concrete to obtain access to the re-bar will have a deleterious effect upon the structural integrity of the footing I will gladly adjudicate the matter and you will have the right of appeal."

That is the legal answer I would be required to provide. I would never force you to jack-hammer the footing or foundation as I am not a structural engineer and would not accept the liability. But, I also don't have the authority to approve the installation if I know qualifying re-bar is present.

All this even if I agree with you.

Pete


----------



## HackWork (Oct 2, 2009)

Pete m. said:


> And this inspector would reply; "It is a requirement that *has no exceptions for poor planning on someone elses part*. If you can provide documentation from a structural engineer registered in the State of Ohio that by removing the necessary amount of concrete to obtain access to the re-bar will have a deleterious effect upon the structural integrity of the footing I will gladly adjudicate the matter and you will have the right of appeal."


I thought there was an exception? Has that changed or was it an NJ thing?


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

HackWork said:


> I thought there was an exception? Has that changed or was it an NJ thing?


There is an exception for existing buildings.

And possibly that is NJ thing... couldn't say.

Pete


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Pete m. said:


> And I have no problem with that.
> 
> When the wording changed from "available" to "present" in the NEC and Ohio adopted that edition, inspectors and contractors alike were scrambling to come up with solutions when the re-bar got missed.
> 
> ...


I have only had one inspector try to make me find the rebar. I had to refuse. I can't verify that any rebar in the slab is long enough to qualify, nor is it even tied together. Or if the concrete is in contact with the earth(plastic or foam). I wasn't there before the pour. So how would an electrician jackhammer down to rebar and prove it was longer than the hole size plus a little. You can't, this is Unenforceable.


----------



## Pete m. (Nov 19, 2011)

backstay said:


> I have only had one inspector try to make me find the rebar. I had to refuse. I can't verify that any rebar in the slab is long enough to qualify, nor is it even tied together. Or if the concrete is in contact with the earth(plastic or foam). I wasn't there before the pour. So how would an electrician jackhammer down to rebar and prove it was longer than the hole size plus a little. You can't, this is Unenforceable.


I suppose in some cases it may not be able to be proven. I have the advantage of working directly with the building inspector and if the approved construction documents show re-bar that is sufficient for a grounding electrode and he has already inspected it I know it's there.

I know that not all building departments operate like ours and in a situation where the re-bar can't be verified to exist or even be correct for a grounding electrode perhaps the AHJ will allow an alternate method.

I'm not trying, in the least, to argue with you I'm just speaking from my own experience.

Pete


----------



## backstay (Feb 3, 2011)

Nor am I trying to argue. We have no building inspectors. A building permit here is issued by the county after the sewer system is approved. It has nothing to do with the building. One in a hundred slabs I wire over have a ufer, because I wasn't there before the pour(not even hired).


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Also as an FYI, the 2014 NEC will specifically allow a section of re-bar extending out of the concrete to be used to connect the grounding electrode conductor to the grounding electrode.

Here is most likely what 250.68(C)(3) will say:



> (3) A concrete encased electrode of either the conductor
> type, reinforcing rod or bar installed in accordance with
> 250.52(A)(3) extended from its location within the con-
> crete to an accessible location above the concrete shall
> be permitted


Chris


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I've made a good faith effort over a number of years , in fact i was a big advocate of Herb Ufer after my first soares course, and pushed them as a quality install for some time

But i tire of being the liaison of the state, or ambassador of the nec. In fact i was an IAEI member for decades hoping they'd be some help, turns out that's just another place to drink & give each other  awards.

But to hear that i, as an EC, are_ responsible_ for code violations made by others, and/or that may occur before i'm even hired takes the  cake!

~CS~


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I've made a good faith effort over a number of years , in fact i was a big advocate of Herb Ufer after my first soares course, and pushed them as a quality install for some time
> 
> But i tire of being the liaison of the state, or ambassador of the nec. In fact i was an IAEI member for decades hoping they'd be some help, turns out that's just another place to drink & give each other  awards.
> 
> ...


Then you probably don't appreciate wide gaps around your boxes, created by rockers. Which earns you a correction.:no:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

I think any one of us has a legitimate_ b*tch_ being cited, corrected, or otherwise confronted for something_ we did not do _SRE

110.26, working clearance, comes to mind first. If i had a nickle for for every time i've gone toe/toe with everyone up to and including engineers and architects i'd retire tomorrow

Most EI's can shut a job down if i screw up, i want to see them start doing it when others screw US up, *back US up for a change*, and you'll see my  'tude get a whole lot better

~CS~


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> I think any one of us has a legitimate_ b*tch_ being cited, corrected, or otherwise confronted for something_ we did not do _SRE
> 
> 110.26, working clearance, comes to mind first. If i had a nickle for for every time i've gone toe/toe with everyone up to and including engineers and architects i'd retire tomorrow
> 
> ...


CS, I think complaining helps, look how quickly the rebar thing got cleared up by Raider1 :laughing:


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Semi-Ret Electrician said:


> CS, I think complaining helps, look how quickly the rebar thing got cleared up by Raider1 :laughing:


_Indeed_

you can ask any of the crete heads here about the chickenman electric's _'extra rebar'_ shtick SRE, been doing that for years now

~CS~


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

chicken steve said:


> _Indeed_
> 
> you can ask any of the crete heads here about the chickenman electric's _'extra rebar'_ shtick SRE, been doing that for years now
> 
> ~CS~


I sense deception foul one.:laughing:


----------



## don_resqcapt19 (Jul 18, 2010)

Our building inspector and not our electrical inspector takes care of this on the footing inspection. He will make the concrete contractor stub out the #4 for the future electrical contractor (and yes, this work would be done by someone who is not an electrician). The biggest problem is hiding the copper so that someone does not steal it before the EC hooks it up to the service.


----------



## Dennis Alwon (May 9, 2009)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> The biggest problem is hiding the copper so that someone does not steal it before the EC hooks it up to the service.



I have been fortunate but I usually bury it where it exits the footers. If it gets stolen then it is one of the concrete guys----hasn't happened yet KOW.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

don_resqcapt19 said:


> Our building inspector and not our electrical inspector takes care of this on the footing inspection. He will make the concrete contractor stub out the #4 for the future electrical contractor (and yes, this work would be done by someone who is not an electrician). The biggest problem is hiding the copper so that someone does not steal it before the EC hooks it up to the service.


That is one of the few good things about being a combo inspector. I inspect the footings so while I'm there I check for the CEE. I allow the footing contractor to install the CEE, no need to make the electrician show up to either turn up a piece of re-bar or tighten up a clamp.

Chris


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

raider1 said:


> That is one of the few good things about being a combo inspector. I inspect the footings so while I'm there I check for the CEE. I allow the footing contractor to install the CEE, no need to make the electrician show up to either turn up a piece of re-bar or tighten up a clamp.
> 
> Chris


I agree Chris, the way you do it sounds like the way to go. As I stated earlier, the BI does verify the rebar is tied together.

And, theft is a non-issue if the rebar is just turned up.

I'm glad to see if the rebar ends up in the dirt it will no longer be jackhammer time.


----------



## raider1 (Jan 22, 2007)

Semi-Ret Electrician said:


> I agree Chris, the way you do it sounds like the way to go. As I stated earlier, the BI does verify the rebar is tied together.
> 
> And, theft is a non-issue if the rebar is just turned up.
> 
> I'm glad to see if the rebar ends up in the dirt it will no longer be jackhammer time.


The question may come if the re-bar is located in the dirt is it accessible?

250.68(A) Exception seems to indicate that a buried connection is not considered accessible.

Chris


----------



## Semi-Ret Electrician (Nov 10, 2011)

raider1 said:


> The question may come if the re-bar is located in the dirt is it accessible?
> 
> 250.68(A) Exception seems to indicate that a buried connection is not considered accessible.
> 
> Chris


All driven rods require the connector to be below grade, if practical.


----------



## chicken steve (Mar 22, 2011)

Which brings up the point of the plastics and /or foam barriers used for _'floating slabs' _, which essentially isolate any earth contact

So, sans an EC who _KNOWS_ this, it boils down to an EI, BI, combo inspector, or whatever oversight authority actually existing to _verify _this, or the 2014 visible CGE is basically a facade....

~CS~


----------

