# Driving a Ground Rod



## fortop (Jun 23, 2010)

When driving a ground rod, should the top of the ground rod (where the clamp is) be left exposed above the ground, or should the entire ground rod be driven below the surface of the ground (burying the clamp and ground wire in the ground)? Thanks.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

To satisfy the NEC the rod must have 8' in contact with the earth. Unless you are using rods longer than 8', the entire length must be below the surface. The acorn clamp should be below the surface and also listed for use in a direct burial application.


----------



## fortop (Jun 23, 2010)

Thanks. I thought it would be buried completely to get full 8' burial, but wanted to check.


----------



## gregzoll (Dec 25, 2006)

Mine is around 4" under the surface, and about 3' from the house.


----------



## xxPaulCPxx (Dec 2, 2006)

I got alot of flack for this before, but call your building inspector to double check.

Here, in my city of Cypress, California, they wanted the top of the ground rod exposed 6", and it could not be covered, and it could not be driven down after it was inspected.


----------



## Old College Try (May 12, 2009)

My inspector wants me to put it just below the surface but it has to be left uncovered for inspection.


----------



## fortop (Jun 23, 2010)

Man, you would think the NEC would be pretty clear on this and inspectors would all agree on something this basic. Like different people reading the same Bible and coming up with different religions.


----------



## forresth (Feb 19, 2010)

no mater the minimum required for code, I'd want is a few inches below the surface at least for safety reasons.
Think of what would happen if you fell, and hit your head on that? a little DIY Trepannation


----------



## kbsparky (Sep 11, 2008)

Ditto on burying that sucker. A ground rod sticking out is a danger to things like trip hazards, and destroying your lawn mower. :furious:


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

xxPaulCPxx said:


> Here, in my city of Cypress, California, they wanted the top of the ground rod exposed 6", and it could not be covered, and it could not be driven down after it was inspected.


This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard with regard to electrical work, and does NOT satisfy the NEC. :no:

WHY would they want to create a (albeit minor) code violation and trip/damage hazard at the same time???
Makes no sense to me, but then again, this is California we are talking about. :whistling2:


----------



## frenchelectrican (Apr 12, 2006)

xxPaulCPxx said:


> I got alot of flack for this before, but call your building inspector to double check.
> 
> Here, in my city of Cypress, California, they wanted the top of the ground rod exposed 6", and it could not be covered, and it could not be driven down after it was inspected.


I will check one of the Californe electrician to verify this story I have a feeling someone will steal the copper conductor for naugt reason.

In Wiscosnin it have to be buried end of discussion unless you have tempory power set up then it will allowed.

In France it automatique buried no question asked.

Merci,Marc


----------



## xxPaulCPxx (Dec 2, 2006)

Since I've been here and gotten flack about it, I'm thinking I'll stop by just to verify... just to make sure it wasn't just the inspector I had with bad info.

Anybody know what the NEC code number was, so I can point it out?


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

Paul, it is not you we are giving flack, it is this dumb rule, if it is in fact accurate.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

_*250.52 Grounding Electrodes.
(A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding.

(5) Rod and Pipe Electrodes.* Rod and pipe electrodes shall not be less than 2.44 m (8 ft) in length and shall consist of the following materials. 

(a) Grounding electrodes of pipe or conduit shall not be smaller than metric designator 21 (trade size 3/4) and, where of steel, shall have the outer surface galvanized or otherwise metal-coated for corrosion protection. 

(b) Grounding electrodes of stainless steel and copper or zinc coated steel shall be at least 15.87 mm (5/8 in.) in diameter, unless listed and not less than 12.70 mm (1/2 in.) in diameter. _




_*250.53 Grounding Electrode System Installation.
(G) Rod and Pipe Electrodes.* The electrode shall be installed such that at least 2.44 m (8 ft) of length is in contact with the soil. It shall be driven to a depth of not less than 2.44 m (8 ft) except that, where rock bottom is encountered, the electrode shall be driven at an oblique angle not to exceed 45 degrees from the vertical or, where rock bottom is encountered at an angle up to 45 degrees, the electrode shall be permitted to be buried in a trench that is at least 750 mm (30 in.) deep. *The upper end of the electrode shall be flush with or below ground level unless the aboveground end and the grounding electrode conductor attachment are protected against physical damage* as specified in 250.10._


----------



## Old College Try (May 12, 2009)

Do local jurisdictions have the ability to vary from the NEC? If so do they then have the right to say that they want a ground rod sticking up out of the ground even if it's a stupid rule?


----------



## sparks1up (May 5, 2010)

A lot of contractors here drive 8' rods and leave it with 3-4" above grade and pass inspection! Personally we only drive 10' rods. We drive them into the ground between 8-1/2 ' and 9' and then offset them slightly so that they are up against the building. I have never had an inspector tell me to drive them below grade nor question my methods. Nowhere in Miami-Dade County have I seen a buried rod! I think it is due to the corrosive nature of South Florida earth and the fact that we are at sea level. Could be the same reason in parts of California?

I have seen some jobs where inspectors have made the contractor protect the rods and connections where they are above grade with a 2" PVC sleeve.

Bottom line is talk to the AHJ if you're not sure! Different areas have different rules, sometimes for good reason and sometimes just because they don't know any better!


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

sparks1up said:


> Personally we only drive 10' rods.


Yeah, but you guys can simply push them into the ground by hand. :laughing:


----------



## Marbledust (Jun 26, 2010)

Speedy Petey said:


> This is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard with regard to electrical work, and does NOT satisfy the NEC. :no:
> 
> WHY would they want to create a (albeit minor) code violation and trip/damage hazard at the same time???
> Makes no sense to me, but then again, this is California we are talking about. :whistling2:


 
We are concerned that the ground clamp is visable...we do not want that connection to corrode and fail un beknowest to the eye!:thumbup:


----------



## sparks1up (May 5, 2010)

Speedy Petey said:


> Yeah, but you guys can simply push them into the ground by hand. :laughing:


I wish! Solid coral rock is NOT as soft as you might think! :no:


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

Marbledust said:


> We are concerned that the ground clamp is visable...we do not want that connection to corrode and fail un beknowest to the eye!:thumbup:


Seriously? Are you aware that all ground rod clamps are rated for *direct burial*? Most are marked as such.
They are designed to NOT fail.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

sparks1up said:


> I wish! Solid coral rock is NOT as soft as you might think! :no:


Really? I though you were mostly sand. :huh:

Most of LI NY is pure sand. It is nothing to sink a ground rod. That is one of the very few things I miss about working down there.


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

Old College Try said:


> Do local jurisdictions have the ability to vary from the NEC? If so do they then have the right to say that they want a ground rod sticking up out of the ground even if it's a stupid rule?


if they accept the code, they do not have the right to alter the code. They do have the right to interpret any sections that are interpretable. It would appear the section concerning the rod being below grade is quite explicit and as such, not subject to interpretation by the local AHJ.

If one wanted to argue the point with the inspector, the ultimate power for the area (for me it is a state level decision) should support the plain language of the code and remove that directive of the local AHJ. Sometimes is it easier to simply learn a local AHJ's quirks and deal with them than argue, to the state if necessary, and move on with life.

Sometimes it is simply the inspector being wrong and pointing that out to them helps them as well as everybody else involved.


----------



## a7ecorsair (Jun 1, 2010)

Speedy Petey said:


> _*250.52 Grounding Electrodes.
> (A) Electrodes Permitted for Grounding.
> 
> (5) Rod and Pipe Electrodes.* Rod and pipe electrodes shall not be less than 2.44 m (8 ft) in length and shall consist of the following materials.
> ...


So, to comply with the NEC requirement for 8 feet in the ground but still leave some above ground, the rod would have to be longer than 8 feet. Is that the correct way to interrupt this? The new rod I have is exactly 8 feet long.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

a7ecorsair said:


> So, to comply with the NEC requirement for 8 feet in the ground but still leave some above ground, the rod would have to be longer than 8 feet. Is that the correct way to interrupt this? The new rod I have is exactly 8 feet long.


Yes, and no. 
Bottom line is the NEC still requires the top of the rod to be flush with or below grade unless protected.

I have a feeling you have some overzealous inspectors enforcing their own opinion rather than the actual code.


----------



## Jim Port (Sep 21, 2007)

A7, to further clarify, you cannot have 8' in contact with the ground and leave a few inches sticking up if the rod is only 8'. to do so would leave you with something like 7'-9" of contact.


----------



## xxPaulCPxx (Dec 2, 2006)

Thanks Speedy


----------



## sparks1up (May 5, 2010)

> I have a feeling you have some overzealous inspectors enforcing their own opinion rather than the actual code


A lot of NEC code is proven science but a fair amount of it is little more than agreed upon opinion?


----------



## nap (Dec 4, 2007)

sparks1up said:


> A lot of NEC code is proven science but a fair amount of it is little more than agreed upon opinion?


but it is agreed upon opinion published in the book of rules that are accepted as being applicable to the installation of the system at hand.

As such, that agreed upon opinion is legally enforceable while the inspectors opinion, without support by the accepted code, isn't.


----------



## Speedy Petey (Feb 1, 2004)

nap said:


> but it is agreed upon opinion published in the book of rules that are accepted as being applicable to the installation of the system at hand.
> 
> As such, that agreed upon opinion is legally enforceable while the inspectors opinion, without support by the accepted code, isn't.


Very well said. :thumbsup:


----------

