Contractor revised the proposed riser diagram, what do you think?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cartoon1

Cartoon1

Senior Member
Location
Florida
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
Hello all,

I would like an opinion on the case below.

The engineer plans were basically an 800A main disconnect service - connected to a gutter 12"x12"x14' - and separate disconnects to each building (200A each with their own meter) for a total of (5 disconnects).

The contractor trying to save time on gear and cost revised into - main feeder conduit going straight to the gutter 12"x12"x14' and separate disconnects to each building (200A each with their own meter) for a total of (5 disconnects). So he removed the main disconnect and went straight to the gutter.

In my opinion both designs work and code compliant (unless you see something i don't). Would you accept something like that from personal experience?? or say to follow the original design.

Thank you
 
I would think that NEC Art 230.72 would apply here. If you remove the main, You are allowed to use the "six switch rule" but there are some codes that must apply to that. One is grouping of the disconnects and marking them to indicate load it serves.
 
Cartoon1 said:
In my opinion both designs work and code compliant (unless you see something i don't). Would you accept something like that from personal experience?? or say to follow the original design.

Thank you
Click to expand...
I agree both designs are fine.

Was this the original bid documents? If so, and this contractor won the bid then it should go through a VE process and the owner would be expecting some money back. If a contractor wins a job and cheapens the project by using their own design or inferior materials then the others that lost should be upset, not to mention the owner and designers.
 
roger said:
I agree both designs are fine.

Was this the original bid documents? If so, and this contractor won the bid then it should go through a VE process and the owner would be expecting some money back. If a contractor wins a job and cheapens the project by using their own design or inferior materials then the others that lost should be upset, not to mention the owner and designers.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I will let the owners know about the cost difference if the revised riser is accepted.
 
Make sure the utility doesn't require cold sequence metering on this. Revised plans would probably need to go back to the utility for approval no? Seems like alot of hassle to try to save a couple grand on a disconnect switch.
 
Todd0x1 said:
Make sure the utility doesn't require cold sequence metering on this. Revised plans would probably need to go back to the utility for approval no? Seems like alot of hassle to try to save a couple grand on a disconnect switch.
Click to expand...
Sounds like it’s just one meter, so that shouldn’t be a problem. 800 amp switches are going for about 7-8 grand right now, with about 4-5 hundred per fuse.
 
hillbilly1 said:
Sounds like it’s just one meter, so that shouldn’t be a problem. 800 amp switches are going for about 7-8 grand right now, with about 4-5 hundred per fuse.
Click to expand...
OP said qty 5 meter/mains. Don't utilities usually want cold sequence for these assuming its commercial? Or only if more than 6 mains?
 
Todd0x1 said:
OP said qty 5 meter/mains. Don't utilities usually want cold sequence for these assuming its commercial? Or only if more than 6 mains?
Click to expand...
If it’s direct metering (plug in or bolt in metering) CT, no. If these are 200’s, it will probably be direct metering, so the 800 amp main won’t make a difference, they still will require a disconnect ahead of each meter if 480 volt.
 
Was the design signed and sealed by the engineer? If "yes", someone needs to loop him in right quick.
 
Cartoon1 said:
Hello all,

I would like an opinion on the case below.

The engineer plans were basically an 800A main disconnect service - connected to a gutter 12"x12"x14' - and separate disconnects to each building (200A each with their own meter) for a total of (5 disconnects).

The contractor trying to save time on gear and cost revised into - main feeder conduit going straight to the gutter 12"x12"x14' and separate disconnects to each building (200A each with their own meter) for a total of (5 disconnects). So he removed the main disconnect and went straight to the gutter.

In my opinion both designs work and code compliant (unless you see something i don't). Would you accept something like that from personal experience?? or say to follow the original design.

Thank you
Click to expand...
Without having to examine all what are being said, the contractor is either not experienced enough or unfamiliar with construction laws and procedures.
When he took it upon himself by making revisions because his priorities differ from the engineer in terms or saving money—he is showing his naivety and ignorance.
He is setting himself up for a nasty court battle should something happens..

Before this project was even started, all drawings must have been through the approval of the project review of the city AHJ and Building and Safety Department.

The plans submitted by the owner for review become legal documents with the approval of the architect and stamped “Approved for Construction” .
Should there be any revision, addenda or errata, it should be promptly recorded and archived and stamped “SUPERSEDED or OBSOLETE”

None of these corrected documents are thrown in the trash. They are again, archived.
I agree with GADFLY when he says:

The engineer (and I paraphrase) should be an important player in this instance.
 
I just had a job where the lead time was six months on the equipment. Sent it back to the engineer to redraw it with readily available components, as we didn’t have six months before the new machine arrived. But then the engineer worked for me, and the customer just wanted it ready, so that wasn’t a big problem. Passed inspection this week, and should be energized next week. The machine is coming in on the 15th! Had to pay extra engineering fees, but that got passed on to the customer.
 
hillbilly1 said:
I just had a job where the lead time was six months on the equipment. Sent it back to the engineer to redraw it with readily available components, as we didn’t have six months before the new machine arrived. But then the engineer worked for me, and the customer just wanted it ready, so that wasn’t a big problem. Passed inspection this week, and should be energized next week. The machine is coming in on the 15th! Had to pay extra engineering fees, but that got passed on to the customer.
Click to expand...

Having the same problems here. 42 weeks for switch gears easily.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top