Sharing Ground Rods

roger said:
I'm late to the party and haven't read all the posts but IMO, I see the length of the conductor in contact with the earth simply being a GE itself and the longer it is between the service bonding and the first Electrode the better it is
Click to expand...
The code seems to imply that the GEC doesn't work as a grounding electrode. Rods must have a magical ingredient that makes all the great stuff happen 😂
 
petersonra said:
There is no place the code says you have to have a separate ges for every structure.

I think it would be code legal to have a single ges and run a common gec to every structure.
Click to expand...
That is done on a lot of industrial sites as part of the grounding electrode system for each building

As long as the first part of 250.50 is compliant for each individual building
 
david said:
That is done on a lot of industrial sites as part of the grounding electrode system for each building

As long as the first part of 250.50 is compliant for each individual building
Click to expand...
Agreed. The relevant point here is that, if close enough, those separate systems should be tied together into a single system; if really close enough, one qualifying system can indeed suffice for more than one structure.
 
petersonra said:
There is no place the code says you have to have a separate ges for every structure.

I think it would be code legal to have a single ges and run a common gec to every structure.
Click to expand...
See Wayne's post. The electrodes have to be 'at' the building or structure. You decide how close that needs to be.
 
jaggedben said:
See Wayne's post. The electrodes have to be 'at' the building or structure. You decide how close that needs to be.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I agree, that requires applying a modifier from the first sentence of 250.50 ("present at each building or structure served") implicitly to the second sentence. It's certainly not explicit.

Cheers, Wayne
 
I don't even what to bring this back in but if 250.121 (A) coupled with complying with 250.6 (A) is directing an allowance to use the grounding electrode system at the origin (service) of the feeder using a equipment ground/ grounding electrode conductor.

How could we then say you could not use the service grounding electrode system to connect our grounding electrode conductor from the pedestal no matter what the distance if we choose that option.

It cannot be said to be present at the pedestal location it cannot be required.

I see nothing in the code disallowing that as a option

With that I have nothing more constructive to suggest
 
wwhitney said:
I'm not sure I agree, that requires applying a modifier from the first sentence of 250.50 ("present at each building or structure served") implicitly to the second sentence. It's certainly not explicit.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
It's more than implicit, it's the only logical interpretation. Otherwise the requirements would speak of a GES for a service or power source and not a building or structure.
 
jaggedben said:
It's more than implicit, it's the only logical interpretation. Otherwise the requirements would speak of a GES for a service or power source and not a building or structure.
Click to expand...
No, as per my first post, the requirements for a GEC are stricter than for an EGC, so allowing remote electrodes is not the same thing as getting rid of the GES requirement completely.

Cheers, Wayne
 
Seems to be "compliantly safe" with our interpretations of the "legalize written" language of the code, to simply drive a second rod to serve the pool equipment electrical sup panel. From all the post, this seems safe.
 
250.52 shall be installed and used the OP did that he drove a rod at the pedestal.

The OP ask about 250.53 a supplemental electrode.

250.53 simply says bonded to one of the following 250.53 does not say installed and used

By that language the second ground rod could be anywhere.
 
250.50 shall be installed and used. When was it installed? where was it installed?
250.52 Other local under ground systems or structures. Example local metal under ground well casing.
When was it installed? Where was it installed?
 
wwhitney said:
No, as per my first post, the requirements for a GEC are stricter than for an EGC, so allowing remote electrodes is not the same thing as getting rid of the GES requirement completely.

Cheers, Wayne
Click to expand...
petersonra said:
I think that only applies to grounding electrodes that happen to be present. It does not require their presence.
Click to expand...

I think your readings are a huge stretch that are plainly at odds with the obvious intent of 250.32 and 250.50. Again, why would these sections refer to buildings or structures at all if the electrodes can be remote from them?

Mind you, I don't think it particularly matters from a safety or engineering point of view, but I think the code is clear enough in what it says.
 
jaggedben said:
I think your readings are a huge stretch that are plainly at odds with the obvious intent of 250.32 and 250.50. Again, why would these sections refer to buildings or structures at all if the electrodes can be remote from them?

Mind you, I don't think it particularly matters from a safety or engineering point of view, but I think the code is clear enough in what it says.
Click to expand...
suppose you have a building with a CEE that is the GES for that structure.

suppose your service is located on a pole 3 feet away from the building's CEE connection.

can you use the same GES for both the pole structure and the building structure?

what if the pole is 10 feet away? 20? 50? 100?

by your logic you would need to pound two ground rods at the pole.
 
Two structures sharing a single GES does not conflict with each structure having a GES.

To me, how far apart two structures can be and still share one GES is a judgement call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top