TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
- Thread starter frank
- Start date
- Status
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
No, 250.24(A) states "....shall have a grounding electrode conductor connected to the grounded service conductor, AT EACH SERVICE...." 250.32 is for more than one buildin but with a COMMON service.
No, 250.24(A) states "....shall have a grounding electrode conductor connected to the grounded service conductor, AT EACH SERVICE...." 250.32 is for more than one buildin but with a COMMON service.
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
BP, I disagree. I interpet 250.24(A) meaning each service shall have it own GEC, but it can be a common electrode system such as a water pipe is common. I think you could use seperate or common electrodes.
[ March 11, 2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: dereckbc ]
BP, I disagree. I interpet 250.24(A) meaning each service shall have it own GEC, but it can be a common electrode system such as a water pipe is common. I think you could use seperate or common electrodes.
[ March 11, 2003, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: dereckbc ]
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
I understand that a water pipe that is common to both builings could end up as the GEC for both, but he stated in the post ground rod. Besides, would you really want to do this?
I understand that a water pipe that is common to both builings could end up as the GEC for both, but he stated in the post ground rod. Besides, would you really want to do this?
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
BP, personally I would not use a common ground rod for two seperate services in two seperate buildings unless the two building share communications or some sort of singnalling circuits. I just do not read anything into the code that would prevent it.
BP, personally I would not use a common ground rod for two seperate services in two seperate buildings unless the two building share communications or some sort of singnalling circuits. I just do not read anything into the code that would prevent it.
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
One comment here. A ground rod is simply for braceing against a surge or a lightning stroke. For anything other it is a placebo
Now the point.
If we really think it serves any other purpose we need to go back to school.
With that said, the MGN would serve as the fault clearing path, and could be common to every sevice (no matter the number) it serves.
Let's remember we are talking about ground rods as the GE, not true GE,s.
Roger
[ March 12, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
One comment here. A ground rod is simply for braceing against a surge or a lightning stroke. For anything other it is a placebo
Now the point.
If we really think it serves any other purpose we need to go back to school.
With that said, the MGN would serve as the fault clearing path, and could be common to every sevice (no matter the number) it serves.
Let's remember we are talking about ground rods as the GE, not true GE,s.
Roger
[ March 12, 2003, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
In my opinion 250.50 requires that each building have its own grounding electrode system.
In my opinion 250.50 requires that each building have its own grounding electrode system.
Don
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
I agree that the grounding electrode system is for surge and lighting path. That being said, why would you want to subject a separate building, with a completely separate service to each others surges and lighting strikes. The grounding electrode system is sized and installed based on the service it is connected to. If multiple services are permitted to share the electrode itself, that is like saying you could run your GEC over to your neighbors ground rod so you don't have to install one for yourself. Separate service, separate grounding system.
I agree that the grounding electrode system is for surge and lighting path. That being said, why would you want to subject a separate building, with a completely separate service to each others surges and lighting strikes. The grounding electrode system is sized and installed based on the service it is connected to. If multiple services are permitted to share the electrode itself, that is like saying you could run your GEC over to your neighbors ground rod so you don't have to install one for yourself. Separate service, separate grounding system.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
I still say no and do not feel there is an AHJ out there that would approve. My justification is still 250.24 concerning the GEC itself, and 250.50 concerning the electrode itself. "at each building or structure served"
I still say no and do not feel there is an AHJ out there that would approve. My justification is still 250.24 concerning the GEC itself, and 250.50 concerning the electrode itself. "at each building or structure served"
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
I would be concerned of the definition "Premise Wiring ( System)".
I am thinking if two buildings, same property, same ownership, are just a few yards apart, and one is supplied by a 1? system and the other building is supplied by a 3? system, there is probably telephone, CATV, intercom, water piping systems, and other metallic inter-connections between the two buildings.
The PoCo side will be bonded to the same common conductor.
Connecting to the same GE system should not be detrimental to the electrical systems.
Yes, 250.58 does say " - - in or at a building - - -". , meaning singular.
I would be concerned of the definition "Premise Wiring ( System)".
I am thinking if two buildings, same property, same ownership, are just a few yards apart, and one is supplied by a 1? system and the other building is supplied by a 3? system, there is probably telephone, CATV, intercom, water piping systems, and other metallic inter-connections between the two buildings.
The PoCo side will be bonded to the same common conductor.
Connecting to the same GE system should not be detrimental to the electrical systems.
Yes, 250.58 does say " - - in or at a building - - -". , meaning singular.
- Location
- Illinois
- Occupation
- retired electrician
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
I see no reason, either electrical or code, not to connect the 2 grounding electrode systems. I believe that the code requires that each building have its own grounding electrode system, but there is no rule that says you can't bond them together.
don
I see no reason, either electrical or code, not to connect the 2 grounding electrode systems. I believe that the code requires that each building have its own grounding electrode system, but there is no rule that says you can't bond them together.
don
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
This is great news! For now on, I will be bonding air terminal lighting rods to the building service next door! No more TVSS's needed! I can see the profits already! (not to mention the lawsuits too!)
This is great news! For now on, I will be bonding air terminal lighting rods to the building service next door! No more TVSS's needed! I can see the profits already! (not to mention the lawsuits too!)
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
bph,
Now, what would realy be wrong with all buildings served from one transformer (one grounded conductor common to all) having a common GEC.
We know this is the case in neighborhoods with metalic water systems.
Roger
[ March 13, 2003, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
bph,
remember we are talking ground rods, and regardless of size, this connection is not required to be sized per 250.66
Now, what would realy be wrong with all buildings served from one transformer (one grounded conductor common to all) having a common GEC.
We know this is the case in neighborhoods with metalic water systems.
Roger
[ March 13, 2003, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: roger ]
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
I never said there would be anything wrong with multiple buildings sharing a transformer and the grounded conductor from the transformer. What I don't agree with is sharing the grounding electrode system for two or more separate services. So with your logic, I can drive a ground rod (which was the original question, not water pipe electrode) in the middle of a neighborhood and bring as many grounding electrode conductors to this electrode and be fine. There are alot of things you can do to be code compliant, there are alot more things you should do regardless if it isn't specificaly required.
I never said there would be anything wrong with multiple buildings sharing a transformer and the grounded conductor from the transformer. What I don't agree with is sharing the grounding electrode system for two or more separate services. So with your logic, I can drive a ground rod (which was the original question, not water pipe electrode) in the middle of a neighborhood and bring as many grounding electrode conductors to this electrode and be fine. There are alot of things you can do to be code compliant, there are alot more things you should do regardless if it isn't specificaly required.
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
bph, your dancing around your earlier comments.
You're the one who left the "ground rod" aspect and went to GEC as in real GEC.
Your post.
Then you decided to bring air terminals into the thread which has no bearing.
Then you bring law suits into the thread.
Now you decide to tell me the original thread was this,
Show me a reason (not because I think) and I will listen
Roger
bph, your dancing around your earlier comments.
You're the one who left the "ground rod" aspect and went to GEC as in real GEC.
Your post.
Then you bring sizing the GEC per service size, which has no bearing with a ground rod.
Then you decided to bring air terminals into the thread which has no bearing.
Then you bring law suits into the thread.
Now you decide to tell me the original thread was this,
I don't see why not, and you have not given a substantial reason as to why it would be a problem.
Show me a reason (not because I think) and I will listen
Roger
hurk27
Senior Member
- Location
- Portage, Indiana NEC: 2008
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
Ground rods that are on the same premises have to be bonded together as glen described. but for comleatly diferant buildings on seperate properties then it would not be allowed as don had said. One thing to keep in mind is that the longer the run the less effiective the ground rod for lighting.
Even ge's for air terminals have to be bonded to the main ge.
250.53 B) Electrode Spacing.
250.60 Use of Air Terminals.
Air terminal conductors and driven pipes, rods, or plate electrodes used for grounding air terminals shall not be used in lieu of the grounding electrodes required by 250.50 for grounding wiring systems and equipment. This provision shall not prohibit the required bonding together of grounding electrodes of different systems.
Ground rods that are on the same premises have to be bonded together as glen described. but for comleatly diferant buildings on seperate properties then it would not be allowed as don had said. One thing to keep in mind is that the longer the run the less effiective the ground rod for lighting.
Even ge's for air terminals have to be bonded to the main ge.
250.53 B) Electrode Spacing.
250.60 Use of Air Terminals.
Air terminal conductors and driven pipes, rods, or plate electrodes used for grounding air terminals shall not be used in lieu of the grounding electrodes required by 250.50 for grounding wiring systems and equipment. This provision shall not prohibit the required bonding together of grounding electrodes of different systems.
bphgravity
Senior Member
- Location
- Florida
Re: TWO BUILDINGS ONE GROUND ROD
I never left the idea of the original post of ground rod. My quote you are refering to was in response to someone else mentioning water pipe. Matter of fact you brought up water pipe again in your post. The lighting rod and law suit was a cynical joke. If I am designing a service, I am going to create my grounding electrode system by the available electrodes at the premises being served. I am not going to rely on a completely separate buildings grounding electrode system for my connections. I also don't want someone elses' service GEC connected to my electrodes. You certainly do not have to agree, and you certainly do not need do it my way. I really don't see what the issue is concidering I have made this clear in my past posts. This is how I feel about the original question. Maybe it is only my opinion. If the code doesn't specifically say it shall or shall not, it's open to judgment and AHJ.
I never left the idea of the original post of ground rod. My quote you are refering to was in response to someone else mentioning water pipe. Matter of fact you brought up water pipe again in your post. The lighting rod and law suit was a cynical joke. If I am designing a service, I am going to create my grounding electrode system by the available electrodes at the premises being served. I am not going to rely on a completely separate buildings grounding electrode system for my connections. I also don't want someone elses' service GEC connected to my electrodes. You certainly do not have to agree, and you certainly do not need do it my way. I really don't see what the issue is concidering I have made this clear in my past posts. This is how I feel about the original question. Maybe it is only my opinion. If the code doesn't specifically say it shall or shall not, it's open to judgment and AHJ.
- Status