Light poles with ground rods

Status
Not open for further replies.
kilowatt12 said:
Do you think that having a ground rod for a light pole is useless?
Click to expand...

If it's a job spec and you're getting paid good money to install it, then it's not useless. ;)

But in reality it's completely useless.
 
Well, I'd say I can picture it doing something useful in the event of a direct strike to the pole, but the existing pole base bolts would be doing most of the work in the event.

But, that is based on what I've heard, not what I've seen with my own eyes.
 
I call them Time and Materials ground rods.
I have an IEEE paper that states the concrete is conductive and is not likely to be damaged in a lightning strike. However there are reports that damage has occurred when the concrete expands - due to moisture, but tight connections in the reinforcing steel prevents this.
Mike Holt and I would like to see a standard that requires ground rods at metal lighting poles...and why.
 
tom baker said:
Mike Holt and I would like to see a standard that requires ground rods at metal lighting poles...and why.
Click to expand...

Throw me in the mix as well, I would also like to see that.

Chris
 
I can't say their are useless, I have no data either way, would the additional contact with the earth make a difference in a lighting strike. WHO KNOWS, maybe somebody did a study that proves the enhanced protection afforded by the installation of the electrode.

But bet your sweet bippty a lawyer could find an "expert witness" to say you endanger the public and in particular the children of America, because you left them out of the install, spec'd or not. Even worse the jury would swallow it hook line and sinker. NO GROUND TO EARTH how did the electrons know where to go?
 
In the area where I work, the anchor bolts are set after the concrete is

poured. There is no connection from anchor bolt to cage, also there are times

when the bottom of the anchor bolts are still above grade. An example would

be using 30" anchor bolts and having 48" of concrete above grade.

In this case do you think the concrete is still the best 'path' for the lightning

or would a rod or a copper plate actually be better?

Just so it's clear, the anchor bolts are set into the wet concrete.
 
benaround said:
In the area where I work, the anchor bolts are set after the concrete is

poured. There is no connection from anchor bolt to cage, also there are times

when the bottom of the anchor bolts are still above grade. An example would

be using 30" anchor bolts and having 48" of concrete above grade.

In this case do you think the concrete is still the best 'path' for the lightning

or would a rod or a copper plate actually be better?

Just so it's clear, the anchor bolts are set into the wet concrete.
Click to expand...

IMO if the bolts connect to the rebar the height of the pier is not relevant because the pier still goes in the ground. But if the bolts do not connect to the rebar then you would need a grounding conductor from the cage to pole.
 
They followed the CEE (ufer), it's the cage thats already in place.
Click to expand...

Have you ever been involved in one of these lawsuits, between the expert witness, and the lawyer, you'd be surprised, who and what does what. A knowlegable person does not need to understand, all they have to do is convince a jury (if it goes to trial) that a potential dangerous situation exist. I'd bet Tom and George would not be able to develop any acceptable distribution system today.
 
brian john said:
Have you ever been involved in one of these lawsuits, between the expert witness, and the lawyer, you'd be surprised, who and what does what. A knowlegable person does not need to understand, all they have to do is convince a jury (if it goes to trial) that a potential dangerous situation exist. I'd bet Tom and George would not be able to develop any acceptable distribution system today.
Click to expand...

See 250-52(A)(3), would you require a driven electrode with this?
 
brian john said:
I'd bet Tom and George would not be able to develop any acceptable distribution system today.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be able to pilot the space shuttle either, I'm not trained for that - but I am licensed to drive a car. Same difference. :)
 
The NEC does not require the Grounding Electrode at a light pole, as most of us are aware, this is usually a specification item.

From my experience (I have asked many engineers about their 'grounding' procedures for different types of installations- you can say I am nosy), I have come to the conclusion of why some/most spec out some of the crazy grounding schemes we see today.

"UNKNOWN leads to FEAR"

The fear aspect of the pattern developed by the unknown has the company/individual engineer spec what they "THINK" will help to protect them in a COURT OF LAW due to our litigious society.


Yes, some of the engineers I have come across do understand grounding, some so well in fact, and in such a manner that they have been able to provide me with information & sources to help me. I will admit that some of those sources are 'over' my head in technical information provided - usually the math they provide to substantiate their findings.
 
I wouldn't worry too much about litigation from not installing something that is not required by the NEC. There are some very smart people involved with writing the National Electric Code. If they don't find that a ground rod is necessary at a light pole than IMO it isn't.
 
you can install ground rods at light poles if you want but its not required. just make sure you always run an equipment ground from the building. ground rods at light poles are pretty useless i believe
 
From what I know I think driving rods is of no major benefit. I am just stating a fact. In this litigious society we live in even the best of installations can bite you in the tushie with the right lawyer.
 
brian john said:
From what I know I think driving rods is of no major benefit. I am just stating a fact. In this litigious society we live in even the best of installations can bite you in the tushie with the right lawyer.
Click to expand...

There will be those who sue you because you didn't install a ground rod at the light. ("You failed to properly protect the poles with a rod....")

And there are those who will sue you because you did install a ground rod at the light. ("Driving a rod caused the pole to attract lightning.....")
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top