notes vs panel sch.

[John165]

We are inspecting a job, where the notes say #6 wire but the panel sch says # 10. Which would you go by? The contractor went by the panel sch. I know that the contractor should have clarified with engineer / arch. which they didn't. Thanks John

 

[xformer]

We are inspecting a job, where the notes say #6 wire but the panel sch says # 10. Which would you go by? The contractor went by the panel sch. I know that the contractor should have clarified with engineer / arch. which they didn't. Thanks John

IMHO... I would go by the requirements of the load.

 

[Strathead]

We are inspecting a job, where the notes say #6 wire but the panel sch says # 10. Which would you go by? The contractor went by the panel sch. I know that the contractor should have clarified with engineer / arch. which they didn't. Thanks John

There is so much left unsaid here. First and foremost, what is your inspection role. I.E. responsible for code only as in city inspector. Responsible for job spec. as in for the architect. QC, as in for the electrician or the General Contractor. Responsible to the owner as in acceptance inspection.

For most of these there is one of two answers. Size the wire per the applicable code, or size the wire to the most stringent requirement (usually a requirement of the specs)

 

[infinity]

A code inspection should look for code compliance. Some jurisdictions look for the installation to reflect the submitted drawings or require resubmittal.

 

[roger]

We are inspecting a job, where the notes say #6 wire but the panel sch says # 10. Which would you go by? The contractor went by the panel sch. I know that the contractor should have clarified with engineer / arch. which they didn't. Thanks John

The engineer is being paid for the design, if they didn't proofread their drawings shame on them. I would bet that somewhere in the specs it says the EC is responsible for code compliance and if they are code compliant all's well.

 

[charlie b]

The engineer is being paid for the design, if they didn't proofread their drawings shame on them.

I will take this one step further: Shame on the engineer and their internal quality functions, for allowing a design package to show the same information in two or more places. Put wire sizes in notes on floor plans or on the sheets that display panel schedules, but never both. Why not, you ask? Because there will come a reason to update one sheet, and nobody will remember to update the other.

 

[qcroanoke]

I will take this one step further: Shame on the engineer and their internal quality functions, for allowing a design package to show the same information in two or more places. Put wire sizes in notes on floor plans or on the sheets that display panel schedules, but never both. Why not, you ask? Because there will come a reason to update one sheet, and nobody will remember to update the other.

^^^^^^^^^
That!