Spec Interpretation- Rigid vs EMT in areas exposed to severe physical damage

[esg970]

I have a spec interpretation question.

The specs read:

1. Exposed, Not Subject to Physical Damage: EMT.
2. Exposed and Subject to Severe Physical Damage: Rigid steel conduit. Includes raceways in the following locations:

a. Loading Dock
b. Corridors used for traffic of mechanized carts, forklifts, and pallet-handling units.
c. Mechanical rooms

We feel that some, but not all conduit in mechanical rooms and corridors should be rigid (If they wanted all conduit in those areas, they should have said ?all? or put it under a different number). We submitted an RFI trying to define ?severe physical damage? in these areas as 6?AFF and below, but the GC said that all conduit in these areas is to be rigid. We disagree and have submitted a change order.

Another interesting point is that the controls contractor is allowed to install EMT in these areas.

Also, is there a definition of severe physical damage?

Any thoughts or input on this would be appreciated.

 

[laketime]

I have a spec interpretation question.

The specs read:

1. Exposed, Not Subject to Physical Damage: EMT.
2. Exposed and Subject to Severe Physical Damage: Rigid steel conduit. Includes raceways in the following locations:

a. Loading Dock
b. Corridors used for traffic of mechanized carts, forklifts, and pallet-handling units.
c. Mechanical rooms

We feel that some, but not all conduit in mechanical rooms and corridors should be rigid (If they wanted all conduit in those areas, they should have said ?all? or put it under a different number). We submitted an RFI trying to define ?severe physical damage? in these areas as 6?AFF and below, but the GC said that all conduit in these areas is to be rigid. We disagree and have submitted a change order.

Another interesting point is that the controls contractor is allowed to install EMT in these areas.

Also, is there a definition of severe physical damage?

Any thoughts or input on this would be appreciated.

The spec sort of spells out the locations for GRC, it does say in mechanical rooms.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

The way I read that spec, you must use rigid for all conduit in the mechanical rooms.

 

[mkgrady]

It is very clear given the facts you have presented that you owe them rigid in the mechanical rooms. Can you find anything to contradict that?

Maybe you could offer them a small credit to lure them into emt? The fact that the controls guy can use emt does not mean you don't owe it, but you could try to use it as a basis for having them agree that emt should be acceptable.

 

[charlie b]

The words, as written, tell me that all conduit in the mechanical room must be rigid. Sorry, but I agree with the GC on this one.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G?del
was the premier logician but was he crazy and now he is dead. He even found logical errors in the US Constitution, wherein the US could become a dictatorship and still be in line with what the Constitution says.

Here's my feeble attempt to follow in his footsteps.

"
1. Exposed, Not Subject to Physical Damage: EMT.
2. Exposed and Subject to Severe Physical Damage: Rigid steel conduit. Includes raceways in the following locations:
a. Loading Dock
b. Corridors used for traffic of mechanized carts, forklifts, and pallet-handling units.
c. Mechanical rooms
"

Imagine this as a Venn diagram.
The two divisions within "exposed" are "not subject to physical damage"
and
"subject to severe physical damage."

There are two missing subdivisions:
not subject to severe physical damage,
and
subject to physical damage.

Furthermore,
"Includes raceways in the following locations" does not say what's included in category 1, above.

The Schaum's Outline Series has a whole book on logic, most of which is very difficult to understand. However, if this issue were put to a jury I'd say there is "reasonable doubt" as to the meaning of this rule. And lawsuits have been filed because of the placement of single comma.

Good luck. There is a hardly a rule on earth that could not use clarification.

 

[charlie b]

There are two missing subdivisions:

True, but not relevant to the specific issue at hand. I would place "subject to severe physical damage" as a circle completely within (i.e., a subset of) "subject to physical damage." Thus, a conduit could be subject to damage, but only minor damage, and we would not know what type of conduit is required there. However, I see the "raceways included . . . " as being a clear reference to category 2 (severe damage). That makes rigid a requirement for all three areas named below that statement.

 

[cdslotz]

I would say that conduit that is NOT subject to physical damage in mechanical rooms, such as conduits coming out of the tops of panels and switchboards, should be allowed to be in EMT

 

[petersonra]

I would say that conduit that is NOT subject to physical damage in mechanical rooms, such as conduits coming out of the tops of panels and switchboards, should be allowed to be in EMT

I am inclined to agree but it appears by the wording of the spec that they have defined all conduit in those three areas as being subject to damage.

I do not see a lot of wiggle room here. It seems clear they intended for only rigid conduit be used in those three areas. You might be able to weasel word your way out of it, but that will be remembered for a very long time, and the story will be often repeated. Being straight with them and admitting you just screwed up is likely to be the better long term solution, even if it is a short term pain.

Did you by chance put any EMT in the other two locations? That might bolster your claim. If you used only rigid in those areas, it is going to be hard to convince them.

So what really happened? Someone just screw up and put the wrong conduit in the mechanical rooms? Or did someone legitimately interpret the spec as allowing that?

As for the definition of subject to severe damage, it appears that the spec has defined all the conduit in those three areas as being subject to that kind of damage.

I do not see what other contractors did as being relevant.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

. . .but that will be remembered for a very long time. . .

Political reprisals change the OP's cost/benefit equation.

 

[tkb]

I read it as only the conduit that is subject to severe damage in mechanical rooms is to be RMC.
Also in corridors only below 6-8' would be RMC.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

I've kept this excerpt on symbolic logic for months and always put off understanding it. Until now.

From
http://www.amazon.com/How-Math-Save-Your-Life/dp/0470437758
an implication is true independent of the simple statements that comprise it
and
the purpose of symbolic logic is to find an instance where an argument is guaranteed to be invalid.

Book example.
1. If "The Commander" listens to "his advisors" [p] then the war will not drag on [q].
[if p then not q].
2. "The Commander" didn't listen.
[not p]
3. therefore the war will drag on
[q].

Analysis
if {(if p then not q) and (not p)} then q
{} is the hypothesis, q is the conclusion

to check for an invalid argument, q must be False.

Since {} must be True then , (if p then not q) and (not p) must be true.
Since (not p) must be true, p must be false.

Inserting these values into
if {(if p then not q) and (not p)} then q
gives
{(if F then not F) and (not F)} then F
{(if F then T) and (T)} then F
if T and T then F
if T then F
this is F so q is not a valid conclusion of this argument.



NEC example
1 if severe damage [p] then mech room [q].
[if p then q].
2 no severe damage
[not p]
3 then not mech room
[not q]

severe damage analysis
if {(if p then q) and (not p)} then (not q)
{} is the hypothesis, (not q) is the conclusion

to check for an invalid argument, (not q) must be false.

Since {} must be true then (if p then q) and (not p) must be true.
Since (not p) must be true, p must be false.
Since (not q) must be false, q must be true

Inserting these values into
if {(if p then q) and (not p)} then (not q)
gives
{(if F then not T) and (not F)} then (not T)
{(if F then F) and (T)} then F
if F and T then F
if F then F
this is T so if you have no severe damage it's not a mech room.
I stand corrected.

 

[Fishspark]

Im on your side

Im on your side

I?m on your side.
The more I read it.. the more I see what you mean. ? It appears that the language was well intended to actually mean this.

1 ? if all the areas are not subject to Physical Damage it?s ok to use Emt ( default )
2 ? However some areas are subject like Loading Dock, Corridors < but not all areas here > and um?.. the mechanical room.

so, you could actually interpret this as being what it really means, only the areas ( or locations) not the whole rooms ?Exposed & subject to Severe Physical damage? need to be RSC. Furthermore, if the controls contractor is governed by the same spec book it has everything to do with it, and that division is ok with emt it?s my opinion that the spec has dual meaning and is poorly written and the Author actually made a mistake not you. Just by the nature of having locations in the room that are not subject to SPD such as certain corridors implies the real intent. Remember - its Exposed and Subject to Severe Physical Damage in the following locations so if you?re exposed and not Subject, Default to Emt.

Cordially,

 

[G._S._Ohm]

And I spoke too soon.

It is also valid to conclude that you can have a mech. room and no severe damage. So, the rule is ambiguous.


1 if severe damage [p] then mech room [q].
[if p then q].
2 no severe damage
[not p]
3 then mech room
[q]

severe damage analysis
if {(if p then q) and (not p)} then (q)
{} is the hypothesis, (q) is the conclusion

to check for an invalid argument, (q) must be false.

Since {} must be true then (if p then q) and (not p) must be true.
Since (not p) must be true, p must be false.

Inserting these values into
if {(if p then q) and (not p)} then (q)
gives
{(if F then F) and (not F)} then (F)
{(if F then F) and (T)} then F
if F and T then F
if F then F
this is T so if you have no severe damage then it's a mech room.



I'd ask that the rule be clarified.

By now there is probably software that can check for illogical conditions. I hope the NEC will use it, but I don't think it would be too popular in clarifying the Tax Code.

 

[kwired]

And I spoke too soon.

It is also valid to conclude that you can have a mech. room and no severe damage. So, the rule is ambiguous.


1 if severe damage [p] then mech room [q].
[if p then q].
2 no severe damage
[not p]
3 then mech room
[q]

severe damage analysis
if {(if p then q) and (not p)} then (q)
{} is the hypothesis, (q) is the conclusion

to check for an invalid argument, (q) must be false.

Since {} must be true then (if p then q) and (not p) must be true.
Since (not p) must be true, p must be false.

Inserting these values into
if {(if p then q) and (not p)} then (q)
gives
{(if F then F) and (not F)} then (F)
{(if F then F) and (T)} then F
if F and T then F
if F then F
this is T so if you have no severe damage then it's a mech room.



I'd ask that the rule be clarified.

By now there is probably software that can check for illogical conditions. I hope the NEC will use it, but I don't think it would be too popular in clarifying the Tax Code.

My thoughts - why is mechanical room a place where there is physical - and even severe physical damage?

Sometimes maybe it has more severe conditions than the rest of the building it serves, other times part of the reason for the room is to keep the contained equipment out of the rest of the facility that has a lot of things going on that will introduce physical damage.

A large mechanical room that does have forklifts, manlifts, or other heavier equipment used in it on somewhat regular basis may be subject to physical damage. If the mechanical room is a small room or practically a closet it becomes harder to say anything is subject to physical damage - outside of a mad man entering with a sledge hammer or something like that.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

My thoughts - why is mechanical room a place where there is physical - and even severe physical damage?

I guess it's what people do and have done in these rooms.

The threshold for making a rule may be something like
"if even 5% of the time cables get damaged in these rooms then precautions are needed."
This should also depend on the consequences of cables being damaged.

 

[eric9822]

It's pretty clear to me that they wanted rigid conduit at:

a. Loading Dock
b. Corridors used for traffic of mechanized carts, forklifts, and pallet-handling units.
c. Mechanical rooms

I don't think I would have worded the bid spec any differently if that's what I was asking for.

 

[G._S._Ohm]

I think that the mech room necessarily meaning severe damage is shown to be invalid by
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
Severe damage is p, mech room is q.