PE Stamping with customer specification

[George Stolz]

I hadn't noticed any engineers attacking one another. I have noticed a polite disagreement between one engineer and one electrician. But that sort of thing happens on the forum all the time.

Sent from my laptop using Tapakeyboard.

When y'all get done can you stamp this for me? The beer's gettin' warm.



(Backstory: Actual diagram I sent (in anger) to the building department when they refused to give me a permit without a "one line diagram" to install a quad in a trash enclosure. It was accepted. )

Edit to add: here's a good one I drew for a landscaper when I told him I needed a trencher for a week, and he asked if we had a plan or a drawing so he could get a better idea of what we needed...



Don't be jealous.

 

[George Stolz]

Very well said.

Regarding 519 compliance, it would be beneficial to meet with the customer to discuss what compliance means, what it costs and what the risks of non-compliance are. Determining the probability of the risks might not be practical.

The conversation might might like this:

You: My professional opinion is that this installation should comply with 519.
Owner: What is 519?
You: It is the Recommended Practice and Requirements for Harmonic Control in Electric Power Systems. It states the users of electricity should limit their harmonic contribution to the utility grid to prescribed values.
Owner: How much more will it cost me?
You: 1 billion, sir
Owner: That's too much, do I have to?
You: No. The risks are x, y and z.
Owner: (thinks) I am willing to take those risks.
You: Okay I will prepare meeting minutes and specify non-compliant equipment.

All of that said,
input line reactors shouldn't cost too much and usually provide compliance with 519. If you are going 18-pulse for large loads, that is another story.

Getting serious for a moment, how is the EC supposed to understand the ramifications of these outside specs? Is it expected that every time an EE inserts that into a drawing I need to go buy it, read it and apply it? Isn't that kind of a cop-out from design to implementation?

 

[petersonra]

Getting serious for a moment, how is the EC supposed to understand the ramifications of these outside specs? Is it expected that every time an EE inserts that into a drawing I need to go buy it, read it and apply it? Isn't that kind of a cop-out from design to implementation?

It seems to me if an EC accepts a contract to build something to a certain spec it would be wise for him to be familiar with that spec.

 

[Iron_Ben]

When y'all get done can you stamp this for me? The beer's gettin' warm.

View attachment 20192

(Backstory: Actual diagram I sent (in anger) to the building department when they refused to give me a permit without a "one line diagram" to install a quad in a trash enclosure. It was accepted. )

Edit to add: here's a good one I drew for a landscaper when I told him I needed a trencher for a week, and he asked if we had a plan or a drawing so he could get a better idea of what we needed...

View attachment 20193

Don't be jealous.

The first drawing is good. The second is brilliant. Well done!

 

[gadfly56]

Getting serious for a moment, how is the EC supposed to understand the ramifications of these outside specs? Is it expected that every time an EE inserts that into a drawing I need to go buy it, read it and apply it? Isn't that kind of a cop-out from design to implementation?

The short answer is "yes". Do you want the EE to put all the NEC provisions that apply to every device at each location on the drawing? Or regurgitate every code and standard in the drawing notes? Personally, I'm not a big fan of spec-on-plan projects, but they happen. Usually for very small projects with a moderately narrow scope. Just as and engineer I'm bound not to practice outside my area of expertise it might be a good rule of thumb for trades as well. Not that one shouldn't learn new things, but don't go head first into the deep end without an idea of what the bottom is like.

 

[petersonra]

Place I used to work it was common for specs to come in from engineering companies that would have a page or two dedicated to a list of entities that write specs. It would not even list the applicable specs. Just the list of standard making bodies like ANSI, IEEE, NFPA, ISA, etc. Sometimes the list was more than 2 pages long.

We would note in our proposal the specific specs that we thought applied and make that part of the P.O. They never seemed to mind. I think it made them comfortable that we actually knew what applied and what didn't.

 

[gadfly56]

Place I used to work it was common for specs to come in from engineering companies that would have a page or two dedicated to a list of entities that write specs. It would not even list the applicable specs. Just the list of standard making bodies like ANSI, IEEE, NFPA, ISA, etc. Sometimes the list was more than 2 pages long.

We would note in our proposal the specific specs that we thought applied and make that part of the P.O. They never seemed to mind. I think it made them comfortable that we actually knew what applied and what didn't.

Spitting out everything under the sun is bad practice, in my opinion. Nor do you want to quote every jot and tittle that does apply. If you're doing a high rise, don't put NFPA 502 (Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways) on your "must comply" list.

 

[petersonra]

Spitting out everything under the sun is bad practice, in my opinion. Nor do you want to quote every jot and tittle that does apply. If you're doing a high rise, don't put NFPA 502 (Standard for Road Tunnels, Bridges, and Other Limited Access Highways) on your "must comply" list.

they didn't. they would just list NFPA, not specific NFPA standards.

 

[gadfly56]

they didn't. they would just list NFPA, not specific NFPA standards.

OK, THAT'S an improvement. Not. :roll:

 

[George Stolz]

It seems to me if an EC accepts a contract to build something to a certain spec it would be wise for him to be familiar with that spec.

That just strikes me as nuts. It should be expected that an EC is familiar with the NEC, he's tested on it and it's adopted as law. A standard is just a boring book. You think the majority of ECs spend days in the library pouring over these standards and relating them to the field personnel, or ignore them and hope they're as innocuous as they look? If you wrote in the specs that they should recite the writings of Sun Tsu as they work that's reasonable too?

Tell me what you want or draw me a picture, I don't have a library card, it didn't come in the kit. Maybe 15 hour days are making me punchy, who knows...

 

[drktmplr12]

That just strikes me as nuts. It should be expected that an EC is familiar with the NEC, he's tested on it and it's adopted as law. A standard is just a boring book. You think the majority of ECs spend days in the library pouring over these standards and relating them to the field personnel, or ignore them and hope they're as innocuous as they look? If you wrote in the specs that they should recite the writings of Sun Tsu as they work that's reasonable too?

Tell me what you want or draw me a picture, I don't have a library card, it didn't come in the kit. Maybe 15 hour days are making me punchy, who knows...

Using IEEE 519 as an example. To me, the EC is not responsible to be versed in the nuances. That isn't reasonable. They should be at least aware of its existence if they are bidding a job requiring compliance, however. The vendor that the EC purchases harmonic mitigating equipment from should be the experts. That's the point to listing a requirement in technical specs.

Another example is electric motors. I don't expect the EC to recite NEMA MG-1, but think its reasonable to expect the supplier to understand it perfectly and supply equipment that complies.

The owner/engineer holds the vendor responsible by holding the EC responsible. Insert GC where applicable.

 

[ggunn]

I am a rookie PE (obtained in January) and am now asked to use my license to use for the first time by designing electrical drawings that are similar to another job. I have a large government specification that asks to meet certain restrictions. One example here is meeting IEEE 519. I don't believe our equipment will meet this, but I don't necessarily see a safety hazard associated with not meeting IEEE 519. Does part of stamping a job as a PE take into account customers' wishes or am I just to hold strict to code - UL508A and NEC with safety taken into account? Forgive my ignorance.

Are you working as a freelancer or as an employee of the client? Either way you should be sure that your butt is covered by either the client's insurance or your own before you start stamping documents.

 

[ggunn]

Once again, I agree that I have to design to codes and standards. I see that PA law clearly requires that, but I suspect that part is fairly universal. Now show me the PA law that says that the seal attests to my having designed to code. I showed you the WA law that says I attest to the fact that I did the work.

With all due respect, I think you are splitting hairs. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. A PE would have to be incompetent or worse to knowingly seal noncompliant documents.

 

[drktmplr12]

With all due respect, I think you are splitting hairs. If A=B and B=C, then A=C. A PE would have to be incompetent or worse to knowingly seal noncompliant documents.

its sealing documents without checking they are compliant. i don't know any engineer that would risk their license by sealing something knowing it doesn't comply.

example is a HVAC contractor sends a EE an electrical riser because he can't get a permit approved otherwise. the EE seals and gets paid $1500. Easy money. this type of thing, called plan-stamping, is one item that ethics rules are designed to prevent. the engineer should not even sign and seal if they DID check the plans because they were not prepared under the engineer's responsible charge. it happens all the time.

Further reading for plan stamping for anyone interested

 

[Ingenieur]

its sealing documents without checking they are compliant. i don't know any engineer that would risk their license by sealing something knowing it doesn't comply.

example is a HVAC contractor sends a EE an electrical riser because he can't get a permit approved otherwise. the EE seals and gets paid $1500. Easy money. this type of thing, called plan-stamping, is one item that ethics rules are designed to prevent. the engineer should not even sign and seal if they DID check the plans because they were not prepared under the engineer's responsible charge. it happens all the time.

Further reading for plan stamping for anyone interested

it is a legal (and ethical) obligation to design to codes/standards/good practice

 

[JoeStillman]

For what it's worth, I took that reference to IEEE 519 out of my specs a long time ago. It is unreasonable to expect someone selling VFDs to be able to analyze the context of every system they are connected to. And 519 is totally context-dependent. Where is the Point of Common Coupling? The drive? The panel that feeds it? The switchboard that feeds the panel? The service gear? If you require compliance with 519 without defining the PCC where you want compliance, your spec is meaningless. I always took PCC to mean the point where you connect to the utility (based on what 519 actually says). Compliance at that point is rarely difficult for the kind of work I do, unless the utility is really soft.

I had a project once where the client insisted on 519 compliance at the panel that fed a 100HP drive; so the supplier furnished an LC filter in series with the drive. The filter made it impossible to feed the drive from a standby generator because the capacitors in the filter caused a leading power factor. The generator just couldn't tolerate the VARS. I authorized the contractor to disconnect the capacitors in the filter and everything was fine, but now I'm on the run from the IEEE police. If they ever catch me, I'm in big trouble.

 

[drktmplr12]

it is a legal (and ethical) obligation to design to codes/standards/good practice

agreed 100%

The filter made it impossible to feed the drive from a standby generator because the capacitors in the filter caused a leading power factor. The generator just couldn't tolerate the VARS.

Some filters LC filters can include a contactor to disconnect the capacitors when not in use, or when a generator is running.

 

[petersonra]

I think there is a disconnect here between what the law says the seal means and what obligations a PE has when creating a design.

The seal in Charlie's case appears to only mean that he did the design or supervised it. But that does not relieve him of any responsibility for the design being correct.

That may sound like splitting hairs but it is what the law in his case clearly says.

 

[Ingenieur]

Chapter 196-27A WAC
RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND PRACTICE
WAC
196-27A-010Purpose and applicability.
196-27A-020Fundamental canons and guidelines for professional conduct and practice.
196-27A-030Explicit acts of misconduct.
196-27A-010
WAC 196-27A-010 Purpose and applicability.

(1) RCW 18.43.110 provides the board of registration for professional engineers and land surveyors (board) with the exclusive power to fine and reprimand registrants and suspend or revoke the certificate of registration of any registrant for violation of any provisions of chapter 18.43 or 18.235 RCW. The purpose of chapter 196-27A WAC is to provide further guidance to registrants with respect to the accepted professional conduct and practice generally expected of those practicing engineering or land surveying.


(1) Registrant's obligation to the public.
(a) Registrants are obligated to be honest, fair and timely in their dealings with the public, their clients and other licensed professionals.

(b) Registrants must be able to demonstrate that their final documents and work products conform to accepted standards. (comment: imo standards = codes, etc.)

(d) Registrants shall be competent in the technology and knowledgeable of the codes and regulations applicable to the services they perform.

 

[petersonra]

Chapter 196-27A WAC
RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND PRACTICE
WAC
196-27A-010Purpose and applicability.
196-27A-020Fundamental canons and guidelines for professional conduct and practice.
196-27A-030Explicit acts of misconduct.
196-27A-010
WAC 196-27A-010 Purpose and applicability.

(1) RCW 18.43.110 provides the board of registration for professional engineers and land surveyors (board) with the exclusive power to fine and reprimand registrants and suspend or revoke the certificate of registration of any registrant for violation of any provisions of chapter 18.43 or 18.235 RCW. The purpose of chapter 196-27A WAC is to provide further guidance to registrants with respect to the accepted professional conduct and practice generally expected of those practicing engineering or land surveying.


(1) Registrant's obligation to the public.
(a) Registrants are obligated to be honest, fair and timely in their dealings with the public, their clients and other licensed professionals.

(b) Registrants must be able to demonstrate that their final documents and work products conform to accepted standards. (comment: imo standards = codes, etc.)

(d) Registrants shall be competent in the technology and knowledgeable of the codes and regulations applicable to the services they perform.

No one has argued that the PE does not have an obligation to see that the design follows the appropriate standards.