Fault currents motor contribution

Status
Not open for further replies.
xptpcrewx said:
Do you think the EI will know how to interpret a study or any of the calculations presented in it? The EI only needs to know that it was done and/or get certification from the EE that the installation complies with 110.9, 110.10, and 110.24(A).
Click to expand...

Exactly! Even with field inspector note EI dont know how to read study and reviewer cannot review it or even ask for it not in admin rule

Why oh why just NEC say to provide study.


What can be done? So then it all falls back on the EE with EI asking for certification from EE that the installation complies with 110.9,110.1 and 110.24(A)? Full circle
 
xptpcrewx said:
Do you think the EI will know how to interpret a study or any of the calculations presented in it? The EI only needs to know that it was done and/or get certification from the EE that the installation complies with 110.9, 110.10, and 110.24(A). It’s really that simple. If the EI has additional questions, or wants to spot check the equipment ratings fine.
Click to expand...
We are jumping all over each other pounding this topic.
That post was meant for when an EC does his/her own version of a calc or study.
No I do not believe EI should be the one to verify compliance of design…just the install meets the design….and we are back to the original submittal.
 
xptpcrewx said:
Did you read the last sentence? I just added.
Click to expand...

Yea so if I write note: inspector to verify short circuit study with motor contribution is provided and that the AIC rating of equipment comply with the study and in compliance with NEC 2017 section 110.9,110.10,110.24(A) and 240.86(C)

So then it all falls back on the EE with EI asking for certification from EE that the installation complies with 110.9,110.1 and 110.24(A)? Full circle
 
MyCleveland said:
We are jumping all over each other pounding this topic.
That post was meant for when an EC does his/her own version of a calc or study.
No I do not believe EI should be the one to verify compliance of design…just the install meets the design….and we are back to the original submittal.
Click to expand...

I didn’t say the EI should verify compliance with the design. I’m saying the EI should get certification from the EE that the installation meets the code if he can’t (or doesn’t know how to) verify it himself.
 
MyCleveland said:
We are jumping all over each other pounding this topic.
That post was meant for when an EC does his/her own version of a calc or study.
No I do not believe EI should be the one to verify compliance of design…just the install meets the design….and we are back to the original submittal.
Click to expand...

Well EC cannot do their version of study if engineer provide specs. Specs clearly say provide PE stamp sign with computer program IEEE certified no hand calcs power riser all motors genny included etc etc
 
xptpcrewx said:
I didn’t say the EI should verify compliance with the design. I’m saying the EI should get certification from the EE that the installation meets the code if he can’t verify it himself.
Click to expand...
I know you didn’t…it must be getting late.

Regarding second sentence…totally agree, except the report should stand on it’s own merit since we already established it is generated by a PE.
I doubt, at least I know I would not, the original EE plan author will validate another EE’s study or report.
 
MyCleveland said:
I know you didn’t…it must be getting late.

Regarding second sentence…totally agree, except the report should stand on it’s own merit since we already established it is generated by a PE.
I doubt, at least I know I would not, the original EE plan author will validate another EE’s study or report.
Click to expand...

Wait are you all saying EI is not able to verify from study that install meets 110.9,110.10 in field? If So then EI gets certification from who if he cannot do it?
 
MyCleveland said:
I doubt, at least I know I would not, the original EE plan author will validate another EE’s study or report.
Click to expand...

This is another grey area, but I believe the Engineer of Record holds ultimate responsible charge as it relates to his project and would have to approve the other PE’s work. It doesn’t absolve the other engineer of any responsibility, it just convolutes things.
 
xptpcrewx said:
This is another grey area, but I believe the Engineer of Record holds ultimate responsible charge as it relates to his project and would have to approve the other PE’s work. It doesn’t absolve the other engineer of any responsibility, it just convolutes things.
Click to expand...
Is this not about how this all needs mopping up…chain of events so to speak.

This pathway of allowing the study to pushed off of the original author is why this confusion exists.
The claims of cannot get info from utility, I don’t know feeder lengths, what if things change….
How about this…make the plan author produce the study once the info somehow appears.
 
xptpcrewx said:
This is another grey area, but I believe the Engineer of Record holds ultimate responsible charge as it relates to his project and would have to approve the other PE’s work. It doesn’t absolve the other engineer of any responsibility, it just convolutes things.
Click to expand...

No PE engineer would take responsibility or approve another PE. Yes it does two different PEs would convolute things.

NEC 2023 include calculations to be provided during plan review stage 110.9 110.10
 
MyCleveland said:
Is this not about how this all needs mopping up…chain of events so to speak.

This pathway of allowing the study to pushed off of the original author is why this confusion exists.
The claims of cannot get info from utility, I don’t know feeder lengths, what if things change….
How about this…make the plan author produce the study once the info somehow appears.
Click to expand...

Delegated design is a messy thing.
 
xptpcrewx said:
Delegated design is a messy thing.
Click to expand...

Well the engineer of record did specs. Study goes out to bid if engineer record bids low enough he might get it if he does Not get it or is Not in race to bid then whoever wins the bid another PE would request the to scale
All design drawings as built from the engineer of record no doubt

At some point they need to collaborate together!
 
hhsting said:
No PE engineer would take responsibility or approve another PE.
Click to expand...

How do you think delegated design is handled? Approving another engineers work as being adequate or in conformance with your project is not the same thing as taking credit for and passing off their work as your own.
 
MyCleveland said:
I’m sorry, I do not follow.
Just trying to state that the original plan author be the one that provides the study once info is known, found, discovered, etc.
Remove the second…gear rep…EE from the equation.
Click to expand...

I agree it’s way cleaner if the EoR produced all design documents, specs, study, etc. but that’s not how the construction industry works. It’s too much of a bottleneck and the EoR may not be experienced in power system analysis.

For larger projects, efficiency can be improved by working in parallel and delegating tasks. This is the real reason you aren’t getting everything you need up front.
 
xptpcrewx said:
I agree it’s way cleaner if the EoR produced all design documents, specs, study, etc. but that’s not how the construction industry works. It’s too much of a bottleneck and the EoR may not be experienced in power system analysis.

For larger projects, efficiency can be improved by working in parallel and delegating tasks. This is the real reason you aren’t getting everything you need up front.
Click to expand...
Bottleneck…? Not an excuse. No experience, why are you selling a partial design service. You know this is not stated going in.

I agree on larger projects or items like PaulE brought up. It remains that what is being submitted is an incomplete design and ONLY a conditional permit should be issued.

Jim D brought up pages ago regarding how sometimes when the report finally appears, brand new equipment needs to ripped out. Are you eating this…no, the contractors are. Discussed this with a few GCs and all stated they ended up eating it. Fair?
None wanted to upset the customer or afraid they would get pulled from bidding future work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top