Thread: Concrete Encased Electrode

A 20' piece of proper rebar (5/8" bare steel) is being used as a CEE. The last 18" come out the top of the footer and will be bent downward and encased in concrete when the basement floor is poured.

A properly sized GEC is attached to the end of the rebar in question with a clamp that is listed and labeled for attachment to rebar and for both DB and concrete encasement.

Would this be a compliant installation?

Similar Threads:

• Gap between stucco weep screed and concrete slab
• Concrete tile roofs
• World's Worst Concrete Finisher
• Concrete Tile roofs.
• Concrete block

No.

(Let the discussion begin, however read what is specifically stated in the code first. )

Yes, it is allowed, has been allowed and has been performed like this for years in many areas of the country and accepted by electrical inspectors who understand the intent of the code.

There is not one single reason why this would not be allowed.

Oh ye of little faith ...

(underlining, bold, and red text are mine)

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

A 20' piece of proper rebar (5/8" bare steel) is being used as a CEE. The last 18" come out the top of the footer and will be bent downward and encased in concrete when the basement floor is poured.

Would this be a compliant installation?

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

There is not one single reason why this would not be allowed.

I purposefully said "(Let the discussion begin, however read what is specifically stated in the code first. )" because I knew that answer was coming forthwith from someone, I just did not know from whom.

Here is the applicable code section:

From the 2008 NEC. (underlining, bold, and red text are mine)
- 250.52 Grounding Electrodes.
- - (A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding.
- - - (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.

Your question stated:
-> 20' piece
-> The last 18" come out the top of the footer
-> and will be bent downward

You started out with the MINIMUM required length of 20 feet, ALL OF WHICH is now required to be HORIZONTAL (in your case because you started out horizontal) or vertical (if you had started out vertical).

The same reason *that is not code compliant and should not be approved* is the same reason that you are not allowed to install five four foot long pieces (which does meet the minimum required 20) in a 5 foot long vertical footing/column - because the intent and requirement is for 20 feet horizontal length, or, 20 feet vertical length.

Your description of that installation states that there is a vertical section within the horizontal section, and that the rebar was only 20 feet long, which makes LESS THAN the required 20 feet horizontal, or, 20 feet vertical.

Now, *IF* you had added a statement which which said as follows: (underlining indicates what I have added to your question)
"A 20' piece of proper rebar (5/8" bare steel) is being used as a CEE in a footing and is tied to the rest of the horizontal footing steel. The last 18" come out the top of the footer and will be bent downward and encased in concrete when the basement floor is poured."

THEN, yes, indeed, you would have a code compliant installation ... if only you had stated that ... but, alas, you did not.

And the last 18" will be encased in concrete never to be seen again and will provide an adequate GE system whenever/if ever it is called to duty for a ground fault condition.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

And the last 18" will be encased in concrete never to be seen again and will provide an adequate GE system whenever/if ever it is called to duty for a ground fault condition.

So you say, but it has never been tested or approved that way.

Just because the last 18" will still be encased in concrete does not mean it meets, or complies with, the code.

However, and in the real world, that 20 foot long rebar *will be* secured and wired to other horizontal reinforcing steel in the footing and will, without a doubt, be longer than 20 feet horizontally.

So, would you see that approved all over the country? Sure, because ... in the real world ... it would be as I described it.

In the real world ... but your question did not indicate that.

My answer was based entirely upon your question.

And I even gave a heads up to go back and read the code again, to make sure that is what you wanted to ask. *I tried* to help you get it correct.

If all the the code books were followed exactly verbatim to the T and enforced in the same manner, nothing would get built.

It all comes down to health and safety and being reasonable with interpretations by understanding the intent of the code.

The NFPA recently published an article where they brought up the issue of AHJ's who get caught up in wording and forget the true intent. They want the AHJ's to understand the situation and use common sense by approving installations that meet the intent of the code even though they may not be installed exactly as the code is written.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

If all the the code books were followed exactly verbatim to the T and enforced in the same manner, nothing would get built.

It all comes down to health and safety and being reasonable with interpretations by understanding the intent of the code.

The NFPA recently published an article where they brought up the issue of AHJ's who get caught up in wording and forget the true intent. They want the AHJ's to understand the situation and use common sense by approving installations that meet the intent of the code even though they may not be installed exactly as the code is written.

Which is why you would tie that 20 foot long piece of steel to the others - the problems go away.

And which is why, if installed as you posed your question, it would be, should be, not accepted, and then explained to the contractor, who would then simply tie it to the other footing steel.

HOWEVER, when you ask a VERY SPECIFIC question, the contents of that question are the only thing which can be used to answer that question.

If you start allowing for 'what ifs' or 'what abouts', then the questions become meaningless as there are now many different answers to the same question.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

A 20' piece of proper rebar (5/8" bare steel) is being used as a CEE. The last 18" come out the top of the footer and will be bent downward and encased in concrete when the basement floor is poured.

A properly sized GEC is attached to the end of the rebar in question with a clamp that is listed and labeled for attachment to rebar and for both DB and concrete encasement.

Would this be a compliant installation?

Jeff, will this be of help? See Figure #4.
http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/f...electrodes.pdf

Thanks Fred--These are the best illustrations I have seen of what real jurisdictions are requiring.


Are you listening Jerry??

I will now throw another wrench into the mix:

Given that many areas build on monolithic slabs placed on plastic sheeting vapor/moisture barriers, is the steel reinforcement in those footings required to be used as a concrete-encased electrode?

I know the answer, but what is your answer?

The correct answer is "no". Since the CEE is not present based on the requirement to be in direct contact with the earth, it would not be a qualifying electrode based on the NEC.
Do jurisdictions still required it--some do..

I've seen slabs laid on plastic sheeting; can't say I've ever seen the footers laid on plastic sheeting....but I've led a very sheltered life.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

If all the the code books were followed exactly verbatim to the T and enforced in the same manner, nothing would get built.

Jeffro,

Your killing me. You come on here and ask these supposedly hypothecial questions and then when Jerry comes back and answers your questions and backs it up with codes you then throw out the comment in your quote above.

WTF?

If Jerry doesn't back you up, you do nothing but banter back and forth with him.

As for others on this board will probably agree, this BS is getting old. I don't you really enjoy being a Home Inspector as much as you'd probably like working at some HI school trying to dazzle everyone with your brilliance you think you have. You were probably that kid we all remember back in school that sit on the front row that held up his hand for every question the teacher had. You could just never figure out why the teacher never called on you for the answer.

M. Mount

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

The correct answer is "no". Since the CEE is not present based on the requirement to be in direct contact with the earth, it would not be a qualifying electrode based on the NEC.

Correct.

Do jurisdictions still required it--some do..

But those AHJ are gradually understanding the reason not to and are becoming fewer.

Originally Posted by Fred Warner

I've seen slabs laid on plastic sheeting; can't say I've ever seen the footers laid on plastic sheeting....but I've led a very sheltered life.

Fred,

When the slab is a monolithic pour the footing "thickened edge" is both part of the slab and footing and the vapor/moisture barrier 'is supposed to' extend under the footing.

If the vapor/moisture barrier does not extend under the footing on a monolithic slab, then that in itself becomes a problem. Which, when corrected, now leads to the steel reinforcing no longer being a concrete encased electrode.

You were probably that kid we all remember back in school that sit on the front row that held up his hand for every question the teacher had. You could just never figure out why the teacher never called on you for the answer.

MMM: That would be the "A" student who is now working for the "C" students of his generation.

If all the the code books were followed exactly verbatim to the T and enforced in the same manner, nothing would get built.

Jeff: This is tired-ass builder talk that has not place on an inspector forum. Your insistence that building things to the minimum standards is not feasible is an illness suffered by nearly all builders. It is an industry-wide construction myth that attempts to obviate the builder's responsibility to act as anything other than a recalcitrant adolescent. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is pure and unmitigated BS.

It all comes down to health and safety and being reasonable with interpretations by understanding the intent of the code.

Jeff: Again another builder myth perpetuated by themselves in order to pretend that they still live in a world with a performance code, and not a prescriptive one. Wake the F up. Look around, it's already 2009 and you're still spouting that antiquated rubbish.

The NFPA recently published an article where they brought up the issue of AHJs who get caught up in wording and forget the true intent. They want the AHJ's to understand the situation and use common sense by approving installations that meet the intent of the code even though they may not be installed exactly as the code is written.

Jeff: Show us the article before you ask us to buy into what the NFPA may or may not have said. And please, no matter what you do, try not to use the terms "AHJ" and "common sense" in the same library. These are mutually exclusive terms. With a prescriptive code it is the AHJ's responsibility to enforce the code as written. If he wishes to render an opinion that flies in the face of the written code, he must have done his research and be able to show that the method he is prescribing is at least the equivalent of the prescribed method. You do not make a case for an amendment with "common sense", but rather with empirical evidence.

The ICC has been in place for nearly a decade. Isn't it about time you recognized that fact?

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Fred,

When the slab is a monolithic pour the footing "thickened edge" is both part of the slab and footing and the vapor/moisture barrier 'is supposed to' extend under the footing.

Not disputing that's the proper way. Just saying it's a rare thing to see around here. (I've never seen a footer system set on plastic). But that's only my limited exposure taken into consideration.

Originally Posted by Fred Warner

Not disputing that's the proper way. Just saying it's a rare thing to see around here. (I've never seen a footer system set on plastic). But that's only my limited exposure taken into consideration.

Fred,

My guess as to why you do no see it is you likely do not see many monolithically poured thickened edge slabs ... correct?

I say that because you are in New York and the frost line would put the footing down below frost level, which would make a monolithic slab impractical. Correct?

The NFPA recently published an article where they brought up the issue of AHJ's who get caught up in wording and forget the true intent. They want the AHJ's to understand the situation and use common sense by approving installations that meet the intent of the code even though they may not be installed exactly as the code is written.

Jeff: If you mean this:

NFPA :: Publications :: NFPA Journal® :: January/February 2009 :: Columns

it does not support your other arguments. AND this is, after all, published by the NFPA who lost out on publication of their not so prescriptive building codes. This went to the ICC instead; and it should have.

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

Fred,

My guess as to why you do no see it is you likely do not see many monolithically poured thickened edge slabs ... correct?

I say that because you are in New York and the frost line would put the footing down below frost level, which would make a monolithic slab impractical. Correct?

Yes. You're right. Years ago, a few contractors tried this method for residential auto garages, but there's just too much frost movement to make this method practical. After all we don't get to take our winter boots off until July!

Jeff: This is tired-ass builder talk that has not place on an inspector forum. Your insistence that building things to the minimum standards is not feasible is an illness suffered by nearly all builders. It is an industry-wide construction myth that attempts to obviate the builder's responsibility to act as anything other than a recalcitrant adolescent. Not to put too fine a point on it, it is pure and unmitigated BS.

Now you are getting like Jerry with your assumptions.

I never said one time that building to minimum standards is not feasible but if that is how you perceive things then that is your issue.

The issue at hand is that we can fail just about every single installation if we want to go by the book exactly to the T. But we don't because we take things into context. I have a reputation for being a nit-picky inspector who writes up the small stuff. This is true but I don't write up everything otherwise nothing would ever get done on time. We write up the important things that matter and are of relevance to the situation without compromising health or safety issues.

Here is a good example of electrical work done for new construction:

How many violations do you see?

Thickened edge monolithic slabs work very well when above the frost level. The slab must be properly protected by insulation which is a pain to install. There are two accepted ways. Installed at a 45 degree angle out and down from the edge to below frost or straight down from the edge to below frost. This only applies to heated structures as there is not the problem with unheated slabs..

The issue at hand is that we can fail just about every single installation if we want to go by the book exactly to the T.

At the risk of being repetitious, this is BS.

I have a reputation for being a nit-picky inspector who writes up the small stuff.

Maybe, but not with me.

I don't write up everything otherwise nothing would ever get done on time. We write up the important things that matter and are of relevance to the situation without compromising health or safety issues.

Again, more BS.

Jeff--It mets the intent of the NEC and is acceptable.

Originally Posted by Jeff Remas

Here is a good example of electrical work done for new construction:

How many violations do you see?

By lumping the repetitious violations together into one violation, I'd have to look more carefully to say for sure, but at least 3-4 at first glance.

By the way, it does not meet "the intent of the NEC" as "the intent" of the NEC is not to allow *some violations* just because the inspector thinks they are "no big deal" and thus it is "okay, all things considered".

Is there anyone out there besides Jerry that is finding the perfect to the letter code compliant job?

And "yes" Jeff's installation is code compliant...at least to everyone that is not anal..

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

And "yes" Jeff's installation is code compliant...

In what way?

Please list what you see which is not right, but acceptable, and thereby code compliant.

Thanks.

Jerry's opinion is like spitting into the wind. You get relief but you get soaked doing it...

I'm going to put that pot on the back burner and set it to "Simmer" while I get some work done, I'll check back to see if it has "boiled over" soon.

Roland,

You really do need to get a hold of yourself and quit feeling your oats, or whatever it is you are feeling/playing with down there.

I feel wet

Teach me, I don't understand how to read your BS--Is there a book or something???

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Teach me, I don't understand how to read your BS--Is there a book or something???

Yes, they are called, by various names (i.e., IRC, NEC, IBC, etc.), 'code books'.

Select a code book, may I suggest the IRC, then select a section you want to read, then we can read it together.

Don't use the IRC just the real code IBC and NEC--Have read them both several times. Ya mean there isn't anything to help me understand your BS???

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Don't use the IRC just the real code IBC and NEC--Have read them both several times. Ya mean there isn't anything to help me understand your BS???

You just named two of them, if you cannot remember things even that long, your short term memory is not worth discussing.

By the way, still waiting for your BS answer to that other question.

How long have you two been married? Don't worry, after 25 years or so you will learn to love each other again

You are still not on the same page as I ..What's your code reference?

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

You are still not on the same page as I ..What's your code reference?

You are correct that we are not on the same page, you've wondered off into the woods so many times with your remarks and comments that I can only ask: Code reference for what?

I think I know, but want to make sure this is not just another one of your distraction tactics.

Jerry --You are really getting behind on the electrical threads so move on over there and show everyone how knowledgable you think you are...

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Jerry --You are really getting behind on the electrical threads so move on over there and show everyone how knowledgable you think you are...

As I suspected ...

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

... just another one of your distraction tactics.

So--Jerry, you want to mentor me?? Why am I a little suspicious? OK-I am game where do you want to start??

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

OK-I am game where do you want to start??

You can start by answering questions, such as this one from a few posts back which was answering a post of your:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

I can only ask: Code reference for what?

To what were you referring when asking for a code reference?

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

So--Jerry, you want to mentor me?? Why am I a little suspicious? OK-I am game where do you want to start??

Not again . . . .

Jeff asked "A 20' piece of proper rebar (5/8" bare steel) is being used as a CEE. The last 18" come out the top of the footer and will be bent downward and encased in concrete when the basement floor is poured.

A properly sized GEC is attached to the end of the rebar in question with a clamp that is listed and labeled for attachment to rebar and for both DB and concrete encasement."

without further information--The entire 20 of 5/8 rebar would be concrete encased at the footer level. Barring any vapor barrier installation, this meets the requirements of a CEE in the NEC. Just because part of it is in the "footer" and part not it is all at the same level..

Why does it matter if it is in the portion that is the footer in this case? I have designed and approved a completely separate CEE. formed up and poured in concrete either along side the footer or nearby. But at the same level . Just because it is no longer officially the footer for something does not mean it is not a qualifying CEE. and just as effective.. The "intent" of the code is to ensure electrical safety and in almost every case the inspector must evaluate something that is outside the box.. Does this make it a code violation--only in the game of darts. The world is built pitching horse shoes..

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

Not again . . . .

I agree, YOU DO NEED TO lay off the alcohol.

There were two possibilities of what you were referring to: 1) post #1; 2) post #22.

*I* thought you were referring to post #22, but was not sure, WHICH IS WHY I CLARIFIED WHAT YOU WERE ASKING.

Crimeny, if only you could read and answer simple questions, then we could progress to more complex questions.

This is precisely what I am talking about, you are not able to read complex questions:

(bold red text is mine)

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

Jeff asked "A 20' piece of proper rebar (5/8" bare steel) is being used as a CEE. The last 18" come out the top of the footer and will be bent downward and encased in concrete when the basement floor is poured.

A properly sized GEC is attached to the end of the rebar in question with a clamp that is listed and labeled for attachment to rebar and for both DB and concrete encasement."

without further information--The entire 20 of 5/8 rebar would be concrete encased at the footer level.

To the contrary, NO IT WOULD NOT.

Now, how about you go back and review that link which Fred provided and you so sarcastically stated, in virtually unreadable yellow text, "Are you listening Jerry??" yet have shown that you did not thoroughly review the drawings.

Go back and review the drawings, you will see that they support what I am saying.

Here are a couple of helpful photos/depictions.

UFER 3.gif

rebar clamp 1.jpg

I guess Jerry doesn't get it for some reason. I am going to the electrical threads. There is some intelligent discussion going on there.. At least for almost 1/2 a day...

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

I guess Jerry doesn't get it

Jerry does get it, Roland does not get it, look at the last links Fred posted ... it is right there in front of you in those drawings.

I would add that on a couple of the major electrical forums, there is 100% agreement that this meets the intent of the NEC and therefore is acceptable..bye

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

I would add that on a couple of the major electrical forums, there is 100% agreement that this meets the intent of the NEC and therefore is acceptable..bye

Then maybe all those authors are wrong too?

I suspect that you worded you questions to them, if you even asked them, is such as way that it implied your desired answer.

Did you tell them that there was less than 20 feet of steel reinforcement which was horizontal?

Hmmm ... makes a difference doesn't it.

I thought this was a good read and would fit in with this post.....sort of!

http://support.fluke.com/find-sales/...15_ENG_A_W.PDF

That's a good article. Hopefully Jerry will read it

This is what I am talking about, I hope Roland will read it.

Go to the question at the bottom of page 3:

(underlining and bold are mine)

- Question:

Can I use a combination of both horizontal and vertical positioned concrete-encased electrodes?

- Answer: To be clear here, could someone use a combination of a continuous “L” shaped 6.0 m (20 ft) section of rebar with 1.2 m (4 ft) in the vertical position and 4.9 m (16 ft) in the horizontal position? If the Code is going to accept a horizontal position as well as a vertical position, then surely a combination of the two would satisfy this Code requirement also. Even though this would seem to make sense, the language in the Code does not seem to support such a stance. The actual Code language at Section 250.52(A)(3), in describing the first two of five mandatory conditions that must be met in order to qualify as a concrete-encased electrode, states that a concrete-encased electrode would consist of “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….” The actual Code language seems to indicate that the electrode must be horizontal or vertical, but not a combination of the two. Perhaps a well worded Code proposal for NEC-2011 would be justified for this section.

I understand the argument that some folks are saying that a strict reading of that code section means that all of the 20 feet needs to be either horizontal or vertical. I'm not even going to touch the subject of whether I think that interpretation is right or wrong.

What I want to know is the following, and I am being serious by asking this question:

If I had 20 continuous feet of the proper steel, and all of it is encased in at least 2 inches of concrete, and all of it is "within that portion of a concrete foundation or footing that is in direct contact with the earth", and I get a proper ground for my electical system if all of that steel is horizontal or if all of it is vertical, why would the electricity care if a portion of the steel is horizontal and a portion of it is vertical? All else being equal and code proper, does having a mixed orientation of the steel (horizontal & vertical) affect the performance of the electrode in any way?

Brandon,

It matters in that what 'has been tested and researched' and found to be adequate and acceptable by Mr. Ufer 's research was strictly "horizontal" concrete encased electrodes.

That said, it was recently (for the 2008 edition) recognized that the 20 feet was not really intended to represent an orientation of the concrete encased electrode, but that it really represented "20 feet" laid out in contact with earth. Now, what could be wrong, it was reasoned, if that "20 feet laid out in contact with earth was vertical, and, would it not be more likely that the moisture level at that depth would be more consistent than the horizontally laid concrete encased electrode at a higher level? Nothing, and in fact it was also reasoned that maintaining the concrete in a more moist condition would improve its effectiveness by decreasing its resistance to earth.

Thus it is now acceptable to use, for example, 20 foot deep footings for the concrete encased electrode.

The difference, then, for a combination horizontal and vertical concrete encased electrode become one of distance in contact with earth and not intruding on the 'sphere of influence' of itself as it changes direction.

Take a regular made rod which is driven into the ground. That has a 'sphere of influence' typically accepted to be a 3 foot radius in all directions (including out from the tip of the rod). That is why the driven rods are required to be "at least" 6 feet apart, so that the 'sphere of influence' of one driven rod does not intrude on the 'sphere of influence' of the other driven rod.

Let's make a presumption that if the sphere of influence for a ground rod is a 3 foot radius, then the sphere of influence for a concrete encased electrode is also a 3 foot radius around the concrete encased electrode horizontally (using horizontally as an example). Now, let's take that 20 foot long minimum rebar encased in at least 2" of concrete and bend it 90 degrees, not only is it no longer 20 long encased in concrete (you cannot count the two separate lengths encased in the same concrete as two lengths, you count it as one length) but the sphere of influence is drastically intruding on one another, reducing the effectiveness to below what has been researched and accepted as working.

See attached sphere of influence overlap drawings, the drawings are based on 10 feet long cylinders 3 feet in diameter representing 10 feet of horizontal and 10 feet of vertical rebar with the overlapping sphere of influence. The flat ends would be domed, not flat as shown, but you get the idea.

I have read that the more correct diameter of the sphere is influence is equal to the length of the electrode. This of course would diminish by at least the inverse of the square of the field strength. That being said it doesn't make much sense to allow any 90 degree change in the electrode which is what the NEC is apparently saying. But even if you attach with Copper to the rebar you will be making a 90 or so degree change and have the same issue. The solution is to depend on all the rest of the steel in the footer. This make a mere 20 foot electrode inadequate. What are your thoughts Jerry?

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

I have read that the more correct diameter of the sphere is influence is equal to the length of the electrode. This of course would diminish by at least the inverse of the square of the field strength. That being said it doesn't make much sense to allow any 90 degree change in the electrode which is what the NEC is apparently saying.

Roland,

Agreed, and if the sphere of influence is indeed equal to the length of the electrode, then my drawing above would basically show that a 90 degree bend at 10 feet by 10 feet effectively makes the electrode only 10 feet long.

But even if you attach with Copper to the rebar you will be making a 90 or so degree change and have the same issue.

No, because the copper is serving as the "GEC", the the grounding electrode itself.

The solution is to depend on all the rest of the steel in the footer. This make a mere 20 foot electrode inadequate.

Not sure that depending on the rest of the steel in the footing makes a 20 foot long electrode inadequate as the testing done by Mr. Ufer was based on that 20 foot length and proved "adequate".

I would say that depending on the rest of the steel in the footing makes for a 'much better' grounding electrode than depending on just a 20 foot length, and 'much better' is a good thing.

Kind of like driving in the minimum 1/2" diameter listed (5/8" diameter unlisted) 8 foot long ground rod meets minimum requirements, but driving in a 12" diameter by 40' long steel piling would make a 'much better' electrode.

"No, because the copper is serving as the "GEC", the the grounding electrode itself."

I agree it would not be a "qualifying electrode", but if it is uninsulated and buried in the earth, it would dissipate applied fault current to sum degree and therefor have a sphere of influence. Since there is significantly less surface area then the #4 rebar the sphere would be less. But it would still have an impact when mixed with a sphere at 90 degrees..

Originally Posted by Roland Miller

"No, because the copper is serving as the "GEC", the the grounding electrode itself."

I agree it would not be a "qualifying electrode", but if it is uninsulated and buried in the earth, it would dissipate applied fault current to sum degree and therefor have a sphere of influence. Since there is significantly less surface area then the #4 rebar the sphere would be less. But it would still have an impact when mixed with a sphere at 90 degrees..

The same thing applies to all bare GEC run to driven rods. And most GEC are bare.