Talk:Ufer ground

Problem with article
Concrete does not conduct electricity. Therefore impossible to use as a ground. (here is an actual source which states this here) Concrete foundations also do not absorb water, and I really don't feel the need to provide a source for that. There is no possible way the statements in this article can be true.

The previous info is most likely a troll, or just copying bad info from another troll source. Though I'm not quite sure why some editors are adamant here to revert me and keep this bad info. Maybe Wikipedia is a propaganda platform now? Who knows. The info I am providing technically is not sourced, but this subject does not have much presence over the internet. The info I am adding is actually accurate, and does not need to be challenged. There is a Wikipedia rule which states that you must use some common sense, rather than go off technical rules.

Please discuss your thoughts and actions before reverting me again, thanks. 75.82.213.48 (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't tell the electrical inspectors this, they will be unhappy. Anyone who's lived in a house with a concrete basement will disagree with the notion that concrete doesn't absorb water. It's always safest to impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with you...after all, look at the tenor of public discourse today. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You noted the intro to that paper discusses the resistivity of oven dry concrete. A concrete structure in contact with soil will not be "oven dry".--Wtshymanski (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the Madhavi paper cited in the original comment, and only over-dried concrete is listed as an insulating material, as Wtshymanski noted. I also pulled the original research done by H. G. Ufer and published in the IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems in 1964. The paper's abundant data supports the conclusion that a conductor laid inside a concrete footing can provide earth resistance < 5 ohms using recognized earthing electrode resistance test methods, see https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4765938. The paper also includes longitudinal data showing that these earthing systems retain their performance over decades of use with no maintenance. Since Ufer Grounds have been in use for at least 60 years without catastrophic failures (remember that the original Ufer study was done on military installations of ammunition and pyrotechnic storage facilities built during World War II) it is safe to say that the system described is functional, robust, and safe, the information in the article is not fundamentally incorrect.
 * I would suggest deleting the sentence, "Ufer discovered that concrete had better conductivity than most types of soil." I did not find any matching conclusion in the Ufer 1964 paper. Macadk - 🇨🇦 Verum aquilonem fortis et liber (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Overstress failure issue
The article mentions (last paragraph) an issue of fracturing concrete due to over stress. But the paragraph just before implies that adequate design (enough concrete and also long enough conductor) is used to avoid this issue. It would be good to say whether the overstress issue is real if adequate design is used. In other words, does it come from inadequate size conductors? Or are the NEC standards not sufficiently conservative? Paul Koning (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Cracking is noted in the Madhavi paper due to corrosion of ferrous reinforcing rods. The Ufer paper does not mention cracking of the concrete. I could not resolve reference 8, "Electrical Overstress/Electrostatic Discharge Symposium Volume 22". The only edition of these proceedings in IEEEXplore was from 1996, not identified as "Volume 22". More information is needed to validate this citation.
 * There appears to be some anecdotal evidence of damage to concrete pads where bonding conductors enter the slabs; however, I could not find any peer-reviewed papers supporting this. That doesn't mean it's incorrect, only that I couldn't find credible studies. It might make some sense on that basis to delete the last sentence and reference 8 unless that reference can be validated and the reference text improved. Macadk - 🇨🇦 Verum aquilonem fortis et liber (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)