• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Temporary Power Pole

Dennis said:
I could tell you that it probably does nothing but you probably wouldn't believe it. I am not advocating not enforcing 2 rods under normal conditions but I just don't see the need for a temp. pole Most areas here will make you drive 2 rods for the structure but only 1 for the temp. pole. For a carnival I would want more than rods if I were designing it because, IMO they are generally not capable of protecting much.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of an exception that does not require a 2nd rod for temporary services if you cannot prove 25ohms or less resistance.

For as much as contractor complain about the interpretation of some inspectors, they don't seem to have a problem not doing things that are required because the code official "lets it go".

I bring this up because I am not a fan of the ground rod method, especially with the soils we have up this way. I do however, as an inspector try to enforce the codebook and I approve things whether or not I agree with it or like it.
 
Dennis said:
Absolutely-- the code in most cases will require 2 rods as one rod will not get anywhere near 25 ohms in this area-- nor will 2. I was responding in jest about being tough guys, because many areas do not enforce 2 rods for a pole. I do realize the code makes no exception for a temp. pole. On a home I use a ufer simply because the rods cannot come anywhere close to what a ufer can do-- at least around here. I got 89 ohms on 2 rods- worthless- but I got 13 ohms on a ufer on the same site. NC has amended the ufer rule and I wish they would enforce it. The rods, IMO just satisfy code and do not much more-- this is why they don't push it for a temp. pole.
Click to expand...
We have problems with the CEE when rebar is used in footers if the electrical inspector is not involved or called during the footer inspection. Clearly a better method of grounding.
 
jar546 said:
We have problems with the CEE when rebar is used in footers if the electrical inspector is not involved or called during the footer inspection. Clearly a better method of grounding.
Click to expand...
So a building inspector can't sign off on a uffer? Seems odd that an electrical inspector would be called for nothing more than a uffer. That makes me feel like I am being abused.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top