Engineering know-it-alls

[renosteinke]

I believe that the reference to 'separate circuits' refers to the dated practice of putting the emergency lights and exit signs on a circuit that originated at the service, and did not even go though the 'main' panel. I believe this practice was mandated in the 80's and very early 90's, perhaps as an alternative to having battery back-ups.

"Egress lighting" is a separate issue. A requirement less than a decade old, that refers to 'lighting the path of egress.' These are the little lights you now see mounted on the outside of the building. As such, all manner of issues arise, espacially in commercial rental properties with multiple tenants- as is common in 'strip malls' and 'industrial parks.' I don't think the OP had that situation in mind.

 

[charlie b]

So once again, language gets in the way of communication. In my world, I put "egress lights" as "every third fluorescent fixture" in the corridors, to illuminate the path of egress from the point a person walks out of his office to the staircase, and all the way to the door out of the building. Once he is outside the building, I no longer call any fixture an "egress light."

 

[sameguy]

They are needed in schools at the exit.

 

[iwire]

So once again, language gets in the way of communication. In my world, I put "egress lights" as "every third fluorescent fixture" in the corridors, to illuminate the path of egress from the point a person walks out of his office to the staircase, and all the way to the door out of the building. Once he is outside the building, I no longer call any fixture an "egress light."

The building code requires us to place egress lighting outside the doors of buildings.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I wrote a guy up for 210.4(B) the other day and his argument was that "it wasn't on the plans". I asked, what do you want me to do staple a copy of the NEC to each plan?

Now I would have asked for the disconnects and the receptacle at plan check, but it's still required by code even if it's not on the plans. The out for many engineers is the note that says something to the effect "that the EC shall wire the premises per all applicable codes that are in affect at the time".

Had one guy argue, when I made him move all of his receptacles up and all of his switches down, that it wasn't on the plans. I pointed to the note that said "all receptacles and switchs shall be installed per ADA requirements." EC's job to know what those requirements are.

 

[iwire]

The out for many engineers is the note that says something to the effect "that the EC shall wire the premises per all applicable codes that are in affect at the time".

I agree that is usually the case but I will also point out we will write up an extra for it as well.

It does not say the EC shall wire the premise per the applicable code for free.

 

[qcroanoke]

I wrote a guy up for 210.4(B) the other day and his argument was that "it wasn't on the plans".

I usually get "that's the way the customer wants it done" when I point out a violation on the drawing.
And it's usually the emergency light on its own circuit.
which leads to this question,
if the unit equipment (emergency light) is not required to be in the building by any code Am I still bound by the NEC to wire it in compiance with article 700 or 701?

 

[Alwayslearningelec]

Couln't of this been a possible change order to you????

 

[Alwayslearningelec]

Couln't of this been a possible change order to you????

I'm sorry if you own plans & specs wouldn't this be in the spec and even though not shown on the drawings...you own it??? Seems like whoever estimated this should have caught that.

 

[zbang]

I pointed to the note that said "all receptacles and switchs shall be installed per ADA requirements." EC's job to know what those requirements are.

But it's also the architect's and engineer's job to know what those requirements are. It may be part of the installer's job to comply with their codes, but it's also the plan reviewer's job to catch the errors and the architect's job not to ask for things that aren't code in the first place, especially when it's the intersection of multiple codes. Blaming it entirely on the installer is misplaced. (I'm not saying that the installer is absolved, just they it shouldn't all be on them.)

 

[jim dungar]

It does not say the EC shall wire the premise per the applicable code for free.

Great quote.:thumbsup:


Part of the reason the CYA statement exists, is not for the engineer to be able to 'skip' required equipment at the expense of the contractor, but rather to allow the electrician some latitude in how the installation is actually accomplished.

 

[cowboyjwc]

I agree that is usually the case but I will also point out we will write up an extra for it as well.

It does not say the EC shall wire the premise per the applicable code for free.

I'm not saying that, what I'm saying is, and agreeing with you, that just because it's not on the plans doesn't mean you shouldn't bid it, especially if you know it's required.

 

[cowboyjwc]

But it's also the architect's and engineer's job to know what those requirements are. It may be part of the installer's job to comply with their codes, but it's also the plan reviewer's job to catch the errors and the architect's job not to ask for things that aren't code in the first place, especially when it's the intersection of multiple codes. Blaming it entirely on the installer is misplaced. (I'm not saying that the installer is absolved, just they it shouldn't all be on them.)

As the plan reviewer, him not putting "receptacles shall be a minimum of 15" AFF measured to the bottom of the box" is not an error. Him not putting anything might be an error, but putting a note that says "receptacles shall be installed per ADA requirements" is good enough for me. Now as an installer if you don't know what those requirements are, you should ask the engineer or look them up. Now if your panel schedule shows three new AC units and I don't see any on the roof plans, then that's an error or you show a 40 amp breaker with #12 wire that's an error, but if you have an receptacle in the bathroom and it does't say GFCI next to it, that's not really an error, because we all know that it has to be (I'll make them note it on a plan check, by the way). When I'm plan checking a SFD I measure the receptacle spacing and if it doesn't scale out I make them add one, why? Because I don't want to hear "but, I built it per plan". You know the required receptacle spacing.

 

[defears]

I wish someone at this site (@ charlieB)would draw up some plans that I install.

Small list of things I ALWAYS see on drawings.( I know some are building or poco rules, but shouldn't these be taken care of anyway?)

1) Equipment ground not up-sized for voltage drop.
2) No 2 head remote outside any exterior door. (Or only one bulb.)
3) Equipment ground ran into poco transformer.
4) Exit lights on one circuit. (Without generator.)
5) No light or gfi on rooftop unit. (We do use gas here.)
6) 3 way switch by itself.
7) No disco before ct cabinet when multiple tenants are off one transformer.
8) A 4/0 copper wire to a plastic water ground.
9) 3 copper 10 ft ground rods, cad welded in a triangle with 4/0 copper. (But on a 200 amp service for a house?)
10) 3 Inch pvc into a load center that in only 2 1/2 inch deep.
11) No outlet for the irrigation.
12) No disco on remote buildings.
13) Bath room outlets never ADA compliant.
14) Switches for a room nowhere near a door.

There's about 10 engineers around my area and every one has these. I feel bad for the customer because the low bidder usually gets it, eats it, then quits. I come in and things have to be dug up, sheet-rock open, and more money.

I understand @#!% happens. I understand typos. I understand the customer changing his mind, but why does the customer have to pay me to re-engineer the original plan? I'm not college educated. The sad part is people not in the trade will automatically believe the engineer or inspector before the electrician.

Is there any type of code update for engineers? Maybe they just don't care about buildings smaller than 100,000 sq ft? (Lower commission) Maybe I should move?

 

[zbang]

John, I think we basically agree. I was speaking (writing?) more generally. There are definitely things that a plans check can't catch, and things that the installer should know, but the engineer or architect should know them too and not expect that it'll be caught down the line. Errors like a missing required disconnect make everything else on the plans suspect, make more work for everybody, and slow things down. Maybe it's because too many people see the stamp on the plan and assume it's good-to-go. What was it Reagan said? Trust, but verify?

I just find it a stretch to put it all on the EC if they miss something that should also have been specified on the plans, there's always enough blame to go around.

(I did some work on a theater long time ago, IIRC every sheet of the electrical plans had at least one glaring error and good handful of little ones. Took me the better part of a week to go over them. At least we hadn't started building yet.)

 

[USMC1302]

There are some good points here, but for the OP, I would send a letter to the engineer and copy the owner. The A/E stamps those drawings/specs and has liability for the design. As an owner, I would not hesitate to go after the engineer on something like this, and would consider it a legitimate change order for the contractor. By the same token, if the contractor insisted he installed to "code" and didn't read the specs and missed work that was shown above and beyond minimums, I would do my best to make him eat it. It was shown/spec'ed and should have been in the bid. There will be mistakes made at times. It's how they are handled that reveals the true professionals.
Any A/E that bolsters their position by flaunting their years of schooling is an educated idiot IMO, just as a contractor who touts their years in the trade as proof of quality work.

 

[Sierrasparky]

But it's also the architect's and engineer's job to know what those requirements are. It may be part of the installer's job to comply with their codes, but it's also the plan reviewer's job to catch the errors and the architect's job not to ask for things that aren't code in the first place, especially when it's the intersection of multiple codes. Blaming it entirely on the installer is misplaced. (I'm not saying that the installer is absolved, just they it shouldn't all be on them.)

I fully agree. I am tired of non-responsive architects and engineers that stand behind such statements written in the plans. A estimator or bidder never knows what other bidders are doing with respect to vague or missing information. Some bidders downright know they will get the mistake as an extra.
A and EE should be fined and or loose their job when one can track these continous mistakes. This can easily be done as the plans are public record.

 

[cowboyjwc]

John, I think we basically agree. I was speaking (writing?) more generally. There are definitely things that a plans check can't catch, and things that the installer should know, but the engineer or architect should know them too and not expect that it'll be caught down the line. Errors like a missing required disconnect make everything else on the plans suspect, make more work for everybody, and slow things down. Maybe it's because too many people see the stamp on the plan and assume it's good-to-go. What was it Reagan said? Trust, but verify?

I just find it a stretch to put it all on the EC if they miss something that should also have been specified on the plans, there's always enough blame to go around.

(I did some work on a theater long time ago, IIRC every sheet of the electrical plans had at least one glaring error and good handful of little ones. Took me the better part of a week to go over them. At least we hadn't started building yet.)

You're right, we basically agree.

The engineers that I deal with all the time, will take my corrections and incorporate them into their new plans. Some plans are just awful and you start writing and pretty soon you have to write "seek professional help".

The best ones are when they're pretty blank plans, like I'm going to write a punch list for them. That punch list consists of "submit complete electrical plan."

Back to the good engineers, smart people only make a mistake once.

Remember, if nobody ever made a mistake, I'd be out of a job.

 

[cadpoint]

I usually get "that's the way the customer wants it done" when I point out a violation on the drawing.
And it's usually the emergency light on its own circuit.
which leads to this question,
if the unit equipment (emergency light) is not required to be in the building by any code Am I still bound by the NEC to wire it in compiance with article 700 or 701?

No, it all depends on what they say about the Structure/Building 700.2. or 701.2

Remember the old saying if you touch it you own it, and it's modern day Codes... (can I add that)

Not many buildings would not have the requirement to have EM lights in some sort with todays wiring methods.

People are and are not missing what is being asked, and said.

 

[kwired]

smart people only make a mistake once.

I thoughy I made a mistake once, but I was wrong