dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
19351
share rss forum feed


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to 49528867

Re: Surge Protection Residential Whole House

said by 49528867:

said by Jack_in_VA:

Depending on the soil multiple ground rods can create potential differences between them causing problems.

That is incorrect when buried ground ring is in place...

As the article states telco, catv etc should be tied together and brought to a single point ground with the building ground.

Incorrect each service should be brought into the structure via its own entrance and then the ground for the protection systems for each service should be bonded to the main grounding bar (MGB).

Note they do not have multiple ground rods in their article.

Based upon that, I would say they obviously have zero experience with grounding and bonding communications sites and communications equipment…

For example a basic six foot by twelve foot pad for a remote terminal will have a minimum of four ground rods connected to its buried ground ring and there will be five ground rods if the power pedestal is not installed upon the pad.

Second example would be a cell hut which like an RT pad will have a minimum of four and commonly 6 ground rods connected to its buried ground ring. Then there will be a second but bonded to the first ground ring for the antenna which may have as few as four to as many as a dozen ground rods.

By the way I doubt you will find a single cell site down here in the lightning capitol of the U.S. where the power communications and antenna cable enter through the same header.

Wayne

Wayne I think I'll just stick with the recommendations of people knowledgeable and educated in the field of grounding. I don't think you really believe you can claim the article was incorrect.

I have all my equipment grounded exactly the way they illustrate and I knew that long ago from my many courses and seminars on grounding and bonding.

iknow
Premium
join:2012-03-25
reply to laserfan
said by laserfan:

Where I live it is common to have the "service entrance" on an outdoor pole, and from there to extend underground to multiple buildings and in different directions from the pole, resulting in sub-panels in each building that are hundreds of feet apart from one another. The only ground rod is at the pole itself, meaning afaict that a lightning strike at any one of these buildings, that finds the wiring therein, only finds ground after traversing say 200 feet to the ground rod at the pole.

Conversely, if a surge event occurs in the overhead wiring and gets through the main panel all-the-way to the remote buildings, then even if you have surge protectors, the excess voltage you need to shunt to ground has to go all-the-way out to the pole again.

Do I have this right, and if yes, how can surge protectors work effectively given the distances to ground? I suppose the answer is: I could add ground rods at each of my buildings and then trench/wire these together between each other and the main service pole/ground. Is this ultimately the right way to do it? Is 6ga enough for a 250' distance?


you should have about 1.024M ohms impedance at 1 ghz with that 6ga 250F wire, so that's not good.


49528867
Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3
reply to laserfan
said by laserfan:

Do I have this right, and if yes, how can surge protectors work effectively given the distances to ground? I suppose the answer is: I could add ground rods at each of my buildings and then trench/wire these together between each other and the main service pole/ground. Is this ultimately the right way to do it? Is 6ga enough for a 250' distance?

If it where my buildings I would do just that.

Wayne
--
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change ready…


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to laserfan
said by laserfan:

Where I live it is common to have the "service entrance" on an outdoor pole, and from there to extend underground to multiple buildings and in different directions from the pole, resulting in sub-panels in each building that are hundreds of feet apart from one another. The only ground rod is at the pole itself, meaning afaict that a lightning strike at any one of these buildings, that finds the wiring therein, only finds ground after traversing say 200 feet to the ground rod at the pole.

Conversely, if a surge event occurs in the overhead wiring and gets through the main panel all-the-way to the remote buildings, then even if you have surge protectors, the excess voltage you need to shunt to ground has to go all-the-way out to the pole again.

Do I have this right, and if yes, how can surge protectors work effectively given the distances to ground? I suppose the answer is: I could add ground rods at each of my buildings and then trench/wire these together between each other and the main service pole/ground. Is this ultimately the right way to do it? Is 6ga enough for a 250' distance?


I have a detached garage with a 100 amp panel fed by a 100 amp breaker off the meter base. The contractor/electrician installed a ground rod for the panel. The inspector made him remove the ground wire and run a #6 back to the the main ground rod for the service. He stated only one ground point is permitted.

He did however make us install a second ground rod 5 foot from the existing rod and tie them together with #6 bare copper.

Be careful with advice and the best thing is to consult with your local electrical inspector. You can't go wrong doing that regardless of what you may see here.

nonymous
Premium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
said by Jack_in_VA:

said by laserfan:

Where I live it is common to have the "service entrance" on an outdoor pole, and from there to extend underground to multiple buildings and in different directions from the pole, resulting in sub-panels in each building that are hundreds of feet apart from one another. The only ground rod is at the pole itself, meaning afaict that a lightning strike at any one of these buildings, that finds the wiring therein, only finds ground after traversing say 200 feet to the ground rod at the pole.

Conversely, if a surge event occurs in the overhead wiring and gets through the main panel all-the-way to the remote buildings, then even if you have surge protectors, the excess voltage you need to shunt to ground has to go all-the-way out to the pole again.

Do I have this right, and if yes, how can surge protectors work effectively given the distances to ground? I suppose the answer is: I could add ground rods at each of my buildings and then trench/wire these together between each other and the main service pole/ground. Is this ultimately the right way to do it? Is 6ga enough for a 250' distance?


I have a detached garage with a 100 amp panel fed by a 100 amp breaker off the meter base. The contractor/electrician installed a ground rod for the panel. The inspector made him remove the ground wire and run a #6 back to the the main ground rod for the service. He stated only one ground point is permitted.

He did however make us install a second ground rod 5 foot from the existing rod and tie them together with #6 bare copper.

Be careful with advice and the best thing is to consult with your local electrical inspector. You can't go wrong doing that regardless of what you may see here.

I understand tieing them together with #6 or whatever code requires. The removal of the ground rod after they are tied together?

iknow
Premium
join:2012-03-25

1 edit
reply to 49528867
said by 49528867:

said by laserfan:

Do I have this right, and if yes, how can surge protectors work effectively given the distances to ground? I suppose the answer is: I could add ground rods at each of my buildings and then trench/wire these together between each other and the main service pole/ground. Is this ultimately the right way to do it? Is 6ga enough for a 250' distance?

If it where my buildings I would do just that.

Wayne

it's about 1.024M ohms impedance at 1 ghz with that 6ga 250F wire, so that's good for 60hz, but not lightning, in combination with rods at each building with short heavy connections would take care of that. so this looks good. research lightning protection, sometimes a proper job according to an inspector can conflict with what should be done for lightning protection. the bottom line is, you can't protect from a lightning strike with small, long wires at one point, even if it's nec compliant. research this. there's a license for lightning protection installers, and they do a proper job.

robbin
Premium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1
said by iknow:

research lightning protection, sometimes a proper job according to an inspector can conflict with what should be done for lightning protection.

That shouldn't be a problem if the installation is done according to proper code.

iknow
Premium
join:2012-03-25
said by robbin:

said by iknow:

research lightning protection, sometimes a proper job according to an inspector can conflict with what should be done for lightning protection.

That shouldn't be a problem if the installation is done according to proper code.

you would need a huge cable to have one ground 250 feet long, and have low impedance at 1ghz, which lightning contains. so if electrical code calls for one ground only, that would be very expensive. 1/0 welding cable gets fried by lightning because the individual conductors are too small!.

robbin
Premium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1
Code for Lightning Protection Systems is NFPA 780. Are you saying that it conflicts with NFPA 70 (NEC)?


49528867
Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3
reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

He did however make us install a second ground rod 5 foot from the existing rod and tie them together with #6 bare copper.

Be careful with advice and the best thing is to consult with your local electrical inspector. You can't go wrong doing that regardless of what you may see here.

That depends on the inspector, for example when the AHJ required you to install an additional ground rod at five feet from the existing ground rod he had you violate NEC 250.53(B).

Rule of thumb when installing additional ground rods they should be spaced at least the length of one (10 feet).

Wayne

--
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change ready…


49528867
Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

The contractor/electrician installed a ground rod for the panel. The inspector made him remove the ground wire and run a #6 back to the the main ground rod for the service. He stated only one ground point is permitted.

What a shame he didn't know better.

From my grounding manual published by RO Associates a leader in designing ground systems whose grounding and bonding for communications facilities course I attended a few years back.

»www.protectiongroup.com/Ro-Associates




Wayne
--
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change ready…


49528867
Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3
reply to iknow
said by iknow:

it's about 1.024M ohms impedance at 1 ghz with that 6ga 250F wire.

Your calculations are way off for a bare direct buried bonding conductor.

Wayne
--
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change ready…

iknow
Premium
join:2012-03-25
reply to robbin
said by robbin:

Code for Lightning Protection Systems is NFPA 780. Are you saying that it conflicts with NFPA 70 (NEC)?

here's a good example of proper protection. »www.tchams.org/FILES/Grounding.pdf

iknow
Premium
join:2012-03-25
reply to 49528867
said by 49528867:

said by iknow:

it's about 1.024M ohms impedance at 1 ghz with that 6ga 250F wire.

Your calculations are way off for a bare direct buried bonding conductor.

Wayne

that was for free air, assuming a .125" conductor 250 FT long.

nonymous
Premium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
reply to 49528867
That is what i am thinking. The one common grounding point should not preclude additional ground rods at the other building. Just the one common point is still needed. Plus I always learned in most basic setups you need a ground rod at both ends of a cable outside. Then on top of that a common ground in most setups even if it is just say a continuous cable sheath.

laserfan

join:2005-01-14
Texas
reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

I have a detached garage with a 100 amp panel fed by a 100 amp breaker off the meter base. The contractor/electrician installed a ground rod for the panel. The inspector made him remove the ground wire and run a #6 back to the the main ground rod for the service. He stated only one ground point is permitted.

He did however make us install a second ground rod 5 foot from the existing rod and tie them together with #6 bare copper.

Be careful with advice and the best thing is to consult with your local electrical inspector. You can't go wrong doing that regardless of what you may see here.

Jack that's exactly what I have to my garage--100amp breaker at the pole, with garage about 200 feet away. And no ground rod at the garage panel, but a big honkin' wire (stranded) for ground, back to the pole, no markings on it but it's a quarter inch across. So I guess our electrician did it right.

What's a "local electrical inspector"? Oh, I remember, yeah we had those up north, but not here in Texas!

So I guess my buildings were done right by the elect contractor, who installed to one common ground point. But then our pool contractor wired the swimming pool and broke the rule by grounding the pool panel (also wired a couple hundred feet back to the pole) to the pool grid, which was really extensive.

So an inspector that looks at my pool panel would make me remove the local ground (there is already a separate ground wire going back to the pole).

I am now sufficiently dizzy that I'm frozen to inaction. We in fact just had a few lightning bolts hit here within the last hour (no rain of course, just friggin' lightning) and all is good, as it has been for 9 years here, through some of the fiercest lightning I have ever witnessed in my 60 years on this planet. I'm inclined at this point to leave well enough alone and thank my lucky stars.

This has been very interesting discussion fellas, thanks.


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
That's incorrect. I drive a rod on every pool with a sub-panel. As long as it is bonded back to the main with a #6 or greater, it's perfectly compliant. It's not required, but it's not a violation.

A grounding electrode IS required on a building or structure supplied by a feeder or branch circuit (other than a single branch circuit). The ground wire is also required.
The inspector who demanded the removal of the rod was dead wrong.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


49528867
Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3

1 edit
reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

Wayne I think I'll just stick with the recommendations of people knowledgeable and educated in the field of grounding.

Guess what you have been communicating with one of those.

»Grounding and Bonding. More than you will ever want to know.

»ebiznet.sbc.com/sbcnebs/Document···-001.pdf

Notice practice 5.1.

I don't think you really believe you can claim the article was incorrect.

I will admit I was incorrect in that statement but please remember it was based on your incorrect interpretation/misreading of the article and your mixing of personal opinions into the subject.

To be specific;

Your comment “depending on the soil multiple ground rods can create potential differences between them causing problems.”

Once bonded together that is false.

Again your comment;

“as the article states telco, catv etc should be tied together and brought to a single point ground with the building ground. Note they do not have multiple ground rods in their article.”

If you carefully study the diagrams in the article you will notice there are no grounds depicted, as such I would say your point is irrelevant.

I have all my equipment grounded exactly the way they illustrate and I knew that long ago from my many courses and seminars on grounding and bonding.

Good luck there guy.

Wayne
--
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change ready…


49528867
Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3

1 recommendation

reply to nonymous
said by nonymous:

The one common grounding point should not preclude additional ground rods at the other building.

The confusion many people have with grounding is the neutral bond to ground which the code restricts to only one, that aside there is no restriction or prohibition under the NEC which would stop a person from connecting additional earth grounds to the existing ground system as long as those additional grounds are all boned to the “existing and required by code” service ground.

Wayne
--
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change ready…

nonymous
Premium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
said by 49528867:

said by nonymous:

The one common grounding point should not preclude additional ground rods at the other building.

The confusion many people have with grounding is the neutral bond to ground which the code restricts to only one, that aside there is no restriction or prohibition under the NEC which would stop a person from connecting additional earth grounds to the existing ground system as long as those additional grounds are all boned to the “existing and required by code” service ground.

Wayne

True.


49528867
Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3
reply to nunya
said by nunya:

That's incorrect. I drive a rod on every pool with a sub-panel. As long as it is bonded back to the main with a #6 or greater, it's perfectly compliant. It's not required, but it's not a violation.

Yes and even though it is not required, by doing so you are providing your customer with a considerably safer electrical system.

Wayne

--
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change ready…


49528867
Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3
reply to iknow
said by iknow:

that was for free air, assuming a .125" conductor 250 FT long.

That should be number six which is roughly .2 direct buried bare in contact with earth.

I get the feeling when you rerun the numbers you will find the impedance to be considerably lower.

Wayne
--
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change ready…


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to 49528867
said by 49528867:

said by Jack_in_VA:

The contractor/electrician installed a ground rod for the panel. The inspector made him remove the ground wire and run a #6 back to the the main ground rod for the service. He stated only one ground point is permitted.

What a shame he didn't know better.

From my grounding manual published by RO Associates a leader in designing ground systems whose grounding and bonding for communications facilities course I attended a few years back.

»www.protectiongroup.com/Ro-Associates

[att=1]

Wayne

We're not talking communications faciltites


49528867
Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3

1 edit
said by Jack_in_VA:

We're not talking communications faciltites

None the less grounding and bonding is all the same regardless of the location, one may not to want to push it up to the level of a communications facility, but the basic principles remain the same.

And by the way, wasn't it you being critical of my ground system which was based upon the practices of the proper grounding and bonding of communications systems that began this diversion of this thread???

Wayne

Wayne
--
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change ready…


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom
reply to 49528867
said by 49528867:

said by Jack_in_VA:

He did however make us install a second ground rod 5 foot from the existing rod and tie them together with #6 bare copper.

Be careful with advice and the best thing is to consult with your local electrical inspector. You can't go wrong doing that regardless of what you may see here.

That depends on the inspector, for example when the AHJ required you to install an additional ground rod at five feet from the existing ground rod he had you violate NEC 250.53(B).

Rule of thumb when installing additional ground rods they should be spaced at least the length of one (10 feet).

Wayne

You have to know Wayne in spite of what you think, say or write your opinions mean nothing except to you. The inspector is the only one who matters and if he says to do something do it.


49528867
Premium
join:2010-04-16
Fort Lauderdale, FL
kudos:3
said by Jack_in_VA:

The inspector is the only one who matters and if he says to do something do it.

Maybe in VA, but down here where we have the Board of Rules and Appeals (the BRA) and they have overruled a number of incorrect interpretations by the AHJ’s

Wayne
.
--
Madness takes its toll, please have exact change ready…


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom

3 edits
reply to 49528867
said by 49528867:

said by Jack_in_VA:

Wayne I think I'll just stick with the recommendations of people knowledgeable and educated in the field of grounding.

Guess what you have been communicating with one of those.

Really? IMO I hardly think that someone who specializes in communications is fully qualified across the spectrum of industrial and residential grounding. That would be a truly a unique individual. That especially is true when your statements conflict with what some of us know and see practiced in the field and required in many areas.

quote:
I don't think you really believe you can claim the article was incorrect.

I will admit I was incorrect in that statement but please remember it was based on your incorrect interpretation/misreading of the article and your mixing of personal opinions into the subject.

To be specific;

Your comment “depending on the soil multiple ground rods can create potential differences between them causing problems.”

Once bonded together that is false.

If the bonding conductor reduces the potential difference to essentially "0", Then that would negate your belief that a ground rod would be needed.

Again your comment;

“as the article states telco, catv etc should be tied together and brought to a single point ground with the building ground. Note they do not have multiple ground rods in their article.”

If you carefully study the diagrams in the article you will notice there are no grounds depicted, as such I would say your point is irrelevant.

I have all my equipment grounded exactly the way they illustrate and I knew that long ago from my many courses and seminars on grounding and bonding.

Good luck there guy.

Don't need luck Wayne. I'm covered.

Wayne


Jack_in_VA
Premium
join:2007-11-26
North, VA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Millenicom

1 edit
reply to 49528867
said by 49528867:

said by Jack_in_VA:

The inspector is the only one who matters and if he says to do something do it.

Maybe in VA, but down here where we have the Board of Rules and Appeals (the BRA) and they have overruled a number of incorrect interpretations by the AHJ’s

Wayne
.

Yes I know that but this is a small rural county and if a person wants to exist here he/she doesn't piss off the inspector. Is it right? No but a fact of life.

We've had people appeal the Wetlands Board decisions to the Circuit Court. Not a good outcome. The deck is stacked.


SmokChsr
Who let the magic smoke out?
Premium
join:2006-03-17
Saint Augustine, FL
reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

Wayne I think I'll just stick with the recommendations of people knowledgeable and educated in the field of grounding. I don't think you really believe you can claim the article was incorrect.

I didn't read the article, but I did read Wayne's reply, and it looked dead on target to me. If we have anything wrong in our lightning protection systems in this area, you'll tend to find out about it rather quickly. It's not uncommon for anyone of my sites to take 3-5 direct strikes a week during the summer.

I did have one of my site's blasted by lightning last summer. I thought that was a bit odd, so I started looking and quickly saw that apparently my old tower grounding straps must have been out of date, and some nice person had come by and spent great effort on their part to assist me by removing all that old bad copper. Unfortunately they seemed to have forgotten to come back and put in new copper to replace it. Still I guess I should be grateful that they cared enough to do half the job for me.

nonymous
Premium
join:2003-09-08
Glendale, AZ
reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:

Really? IMO I hardly think that someone who specializes in communications is fully qualified across the spectrum of industrial and residential grounding. That would be a truly a unique individual. That especially is true when your statements conflict with what some of us know and see practiced in the field and required in many areas.

What was the old bell system five nines up time. Grounding did have tons to do with that. You have circuits all the way from a CO out many, many miles into the field. Without proper grounding besides up time the noise would be canceling any signal.
Bell Labs did know grounding.