|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
#7601 - 07/28/10 07:11 PM
Re: GEC to footer steel
[Re: Ruben Rocha]
|
Post-A-Holic Member
  
Registered: 11/08/01
Posts: 1451
Loc: West Palm Beach
|
So what you are saying is that technically, the connection to the doohickey needs to be at the bottom of the footer, in order to be a true concrete cased electrode.
I never liked the rebar-sticking-out method that was used in Pinellas for years, because as Ruben mentions the rebar is left exposed and corrodes, and so does the connection. Sometimes the rebar was even stubbed below grade. From experience I can say that the connections were frequently loose, and the gardener was somehow magnetically drawn to this connection point, which would get knocked into by his shovel or weedwacker, I never knew which. Or maybe it was the dreaded sprinkler guy (they have some real neat wiring methods, too).
Then others - partially agreeing with this logic - invented a new method - turn up the rebar into an interior wall and make the connection there. Ok fine, but...is that really 20' of rebar near the bottom of a concrete footing? Or is that a splice? Did anyone check the steel twisty-ties to see if they were tight? Is the 90 even connected to the footing? Or did the steel guy just "conveniently" stick it in the right spot, without even splicing it? If there was a splice, did it have proper lap? Did someone even check for lap? Has this method even been tested? (Don't laugh in Poke County to this day, some stick the 90's in after the slab is poured, breaking about every code in the book)
So after a decade or more of reinventing ways to confuse and confound the simple and pure, unadulterated, concrete encased electrode, the truth of the matter is that the connection to the doohickey needs to be at the bottom of the concrete footer, in order to be a true concrete cased electrode.......and sorry John I thought there was a post on this, my mistake.
_________________________
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
#7606 - 07/29/10 03:54 PM
Re: GEC to footer steel
[Re: psnorthrup]
|
Secretary
   
Registered: 10/05/04
Posts: 1622
Loc: City of North Port
|
Looking at the situation purely from an electrical standpoint, it really doesn't make any real difference. As long as the prescriptive requirements of 250.42(A)(3) are met, the actual orientation of the rebar and where the GEC connects will not functionaly change its performance.
That being said, I agree that the electrode itself should be encased, thus the GEC conection and a portion of the GEC should also be encased. If the rebar leaves its encasement its no longer an electrode and it doesn't qualify as a GEC.
I feel one solution would be to allow a vertical portion of the rebar to serve as the connection point if that rebar is in a poured cell. That way, the prescritive requirements of the section are met by the portion of the rebar in the horizontal footing. The short vertical section also gets encased along with the GEC connection. This is permitted by 250.68(A) Exception No. 2.
Another solution is to make the GEC conenction near the top of the slab/floor where the rebar protrudes up, cut of the rebar, and then form and pour the assembly to re-encase the whole thing.
From a structural stand-point, as long as the rebar is not being used as reinforcement, its really not under the scope of the building code. But, that still doesn't change the fact that it could pose a corrosive hazard to the concrete over time. The effect would be much less if the rebar is stubbed up in an interior wood / metal framed wall rather than an exterior masonry wall.
This is a good topic...
_________________________
Bryan P. Holland, MCP
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 0
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|