Sierrasparky
Senior Member
- Location
- USA
- Occupation
- Electrician ,contractor
Recently I was contracted to perform a Lighting changeout of a National Chain store due to numerous problems with the existing track lights failing.
I had told the client that if we just replaced the existing track in it's existing locations and used similar fixtures we would not need to permit the job. Of course they chose to make changes and hired a engineer. The permited plans finally were delivered to me to start the job. I looked over the job and noticed many irregularities.
1) the plans stated Replace existing "150 amp" panel with new 32 cir MB NQO panelboard. ( I had bid only to replace the existing Load center that was only 100 amp as there was some damage to the buss from improper breaker brand)
2) The Load calcs for the existing lights was way off.
a) the 2x4 fl's were actually 4 lamp magnetic not 3 lamp Electronic
b) There were 3 3ton A/c units on the roof and three seperate FAU's in the store. The EE had all the Lennox part numbers to refrence but only used 1 30 amp breaker for each an Calced only 2800 watts each. ( the actual load was 1400 va for each FAU and 3200 VA for each Condensor. )
When the EE was confronted with this dillemma He redrew the plans with a 100 amp panel and stated the load was only 90 amps. I ran a calc including all the elements he left out and came up with 113 amps.
I reviewed the plans and noticed He still had not used the proper wattage and number of lamps and fixtures, he left out the FAU load and claimed the A/C condensor only consumed 2200 watts. I put an amp probe on the 3 units and read 15.5 amps continous at each one. The EE even stated on the revised plans that " the A/C and heating don't run Smultainously." Correct but Heat is made by Propane and the FAU load is used for both cooling and heating. Thus he cannot leave the FAU out of the load calcs. The EE refused to make the necessary changes.
I asked the Client and the EE to review the calcs and upgrade the panel to 150a that I bet they wanted. I also informed them that The existing meter and Main had a tag max 100 amps. The feeder was #2 Cu in 1 1/4" EMT with 4 90 bends and 120 feet of wire. I was unsure if I could pull in larger wire and suggested that not to go that route as I was unsure if I could complete the job overnight as the store was in operation.
The engeneer refused to make the corrections and told me my observations are incorrect. Needless to say I was at the store , He never was, and was in an office 2,500 miles away.
I have been wondering if the client was trying to make me put in a panel that I did not bid to install ( My contract was very specific). Also I was wondering if the EE was unwilling to state the load at the panel was 113 amps because of code ,Then why was he willing to have me install the equipment knowing that it was wrong. The EE was banking aon the fact that no one would see the error and it would be ok.
Has anyone ever been put in such rediculous position. I'd like to just walk away but I have been working with this customer for many years , and They have always paid.
I had told the client that if we just replaced the existing track in it's existing locations and used similar fixtures we would not need to permit the job. Of course they chose to make changes and hired a engineer. The permited plans finally were delivered to me to start the job. I looked over the job and noticed many irregularities.
1) the plans stated Replace existing "150 amp" panel with new 32 cir MB NQO panelboard. ( I had bid only to replace the existing Load center that was only 100 amp as there was some damage to the buss from improper breaker brand)
2) The Load calcs for the existing lights was way off.
a) the 2x4 fl's were actually 4 lamp magnetic not 3 lamp Electronic
b) There were 3 3ton A/c units on the roof and three seperate FAU's in the store. The EE had all the Lennox part numbers to refrence but only used 1 30 amp breaker for each an Calced only 2800 watts each. ( the actual load was 1400 va for each FAU and 3200 VA for each Condensor. )
When the EE was confronted with this dillemma He redrew the plans with a 100 amp panel and stated the load was only 90 amps. I ran a calc including all the elements he left out and came up with 113 amps.
I reviewed the plans and noticed He still had not used the proper wattage and number of lamps and fixtures, he left out the FAU load and claimed the A/C condensor only consumed 2200 watts. I put an amp probe on the 3 units and read 15.5 amps continous at each one. The EE even stated on the revised plans that " the A/C and heating don't run Smultainously." Correct but Heat is made by Propane and the FAU load is used for both cooling and heating. Thus he cannot leave the FAU out of the load calcs. The EE refused to make the necessary changes.
I asked the Client and the EE to review the calcs and upgrade the panel to 150a that I bet they wanted. I also informed them that The existing meter and Main had a tag max 100 amps. The feeder was #2 Cu in 1 1/4" EMT with 4 90 bends and 120 feet of wire. I was unsure if I could pull in larger wire and suggested that not to go that route as I was unsure if I could complete the job overnight as the store was in operation.
The engeneer refused to make the corrections and told me my observations are incorrect. Needless to say I was at the store , He never was, and was in an office 2,500 miles away.
I have been wondering if the client was trying to make me put in a panel that I did not bid to install ( My contract was very specific). Also I was wondering if the EE was unwilling to state the load at the panel was 113 amps because of code ,Then why was he willing to have me install the equipment knowing that it was wrong. The EE was banking aon the fact that no one would see the error and it would be ok.
Has anyone ever been put in such rediculous position. I'd like to just walk away but I have been working with this customer for many years , and They have always paid.
Last edited:
