Counterpoise question

[charlie b]

Recently, we (i.e., my design and construction teams) are dealing with the high price of construction projects by splitting the building into a "base bid package" and a "bid option package." Usually that means a portion of the building is moved into the "bid option" world, so that the base bid has a lower square foot value. I had one of our staff members pass along a question from the field. Can we include in the base bid a counterpoise that would surround both the base bid footprint and the bid option footprint? The intent is to minimize the impact of trying to construct the optional portion of the building, some time after the base bid portion was completed and in service. Our (i.e., the other staff member and I) are of the opinion that this would cancel any value that the counterpoise would provide, in the area that is far away from the walls of the base bid. But is that a code violation? I think not, because the code does not require a counterpoise be constructed.

Would the suggestion from the field create a safety concern? Is there any good reason to do it, or a better reason not to?

 

[tom baker]

Counterpoise as in a ground ring?
I don't see an issue, with a loop of copper out from the building. But my concern would be during constuction of the bid option, it would be difficult to work around this ground ring and it could be damaged.
But if you wanted to install it, you could stub the condutor up a j box and connect to the main counterpoise later

 

[charlie b]

Counterpoise as in a ground ring?

Yes. I had thought the intent was to minimize step potential or reach potential, but I can't visualize exactly how that would work. But if that is the reason for the counterpoise, then routing it far from the building so that it is there to support a future construction phase would certainly defeat its purpose in the interim.