Wet location or not?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Keith6566

Member
In a room with a 30ft ceiling. There is a CMU wall going 10ft up. From there to the exposed concrete ceiling is green gypsum board. The engineer specifies devices with waterproof in-use covers for all wash down areas in a keyed note.

Is the ceiling a wet, damp or dry location?
 
Keith6566 said:
In a room with a 30ft ceiling. There is a CMU wall going 10ft up. From there to the exposed concrete ceiling is green gypsum board. The engineer specifies devices with waterproof in-use covers for all wash down areas in a keyed note.

Is the ceiling a wet, damp or dry location?
Click to expand...

If he is a licensed professional engineer, and the plan is sealed, then it is waterproof in use covers if there is a problem with the choice it is his problem.
 
If it's "normally subject to dampness", it's a damp location.

If it's "normally subject to wetness", it's a wet location.

Since it's open to interpetation, it often lands in that grey area. Generally, whoever designs or inspects the work makes that call.
 
satcom said:
If he is a licensed professional engineer, and the plan is sealed, then it is waterproof in use covers if there is a problem with the choice it is his problem.
Click to expand...
cowboyjwc said:
I always tell the contractors, just bid it they way he drew it and let him justify the cost.
Click to expand...
Well, here is THIS professional engineer's take on the situation: If you think the design is incorrect, that I made an incorrect design choice, then I want you to tell me about it.
  1. If the issue comes up before the drawings go out for bid, then I can get it changed (or perhaps show you why I was right ;)) in time for all bidders to have the same information to use in preparing their bids.
  2. If the issue comes up during the bid process, then bid it the way I drew it, and let's deal with it in step 3.
  3. If the issue comes up after you have won the contract, and if you think you can save the owner money by doing it another way, then submit an RFI, and we will work it out together.
 
Thanks for the replies. It looks like I should expand on the situation. This is a job we are performing at a university research facility. There are approximately 60 runs of conduit crossing the concrete ceiling. There is also a crane rail system (by others, not in our scope) with exposed 480v copper buss bars. We are in a dispute with the CM over whether the note, "all devices in wash down areas shall be provided with waterproof in-use covers", makes the entire room a wet location thus requiring rigid conduit and stainless boxes on the ceiling per their spec. This is the only information given on the drawings or in the specs pertaining to this room being a wet location. We did consider everything going down the walls a wet location in our take off and installed accordingly. We considered the ceiling a dry location and installed accordingly. Our thinking was that the devices called out in the note are all located below 48" in height. We thought it would be unusual for water to spray from a wash down area over 30ft high onto the ceiling. We also questioned the wisdom of an exposed 480v copper buss in such an area. They have accepted the EMT conduit but want stainless boxes. They also want a credit for the rigid conduit work not performed.

I think we're going to lose this one but I'd like some other input. Thanks!

Keith
 
Keith6566 said:
Thanks for the replies. It looks like I should expand on the situation. This is a job we are performing at a university research facility. There are approximately 60 runs of conduit crossing the concrete ceiling. There is also a crane rail system (by others, not in our scope) with exposed 480v copper buss bars. We are in a dispute with the CM over whether the note, "all devices in wash down areas shall be provided with waterproof in-use covers", makes the entire room a wet location thus requiring rigid conduit and stainless boxes on the ceiling per their spec. This is the only information given on the drawings or in the specs pertaining to this room being a wet location. We did consider everything going down the walls a wet location in our take off and installed accordingly. We considered the ceiling a dry location and installed accordingly. Our thinking was that the devices called out in the note are all located below 48" in height. We thought it would be unusual for water to spray from a wash down area over 30ft high onto the ceiling. We also questioned the wisdom of an exposed 480v copper buss in such an area. They have accepted the EMT conduit but want stainless boxes. They also want a credit for the rigid conduit work not performed.

I think we're going to lose this one but I'd like some other input. Thanks!

Keith
Click to expand...

This is kind of a classic illustration of how you can wind up in a bind trying to save the customer time, money, aggravation, or all three.

"No good deed goes unpunished."

It is clear that an accurate bid couldn't have been made without some indication on the plans as to which areas are considered "wash down." I'm not saying that you didn't make good, logical choices, but it is a principal in contract law that ambiguities are resolved in favor of the guy writing the check.

An RFI at the bid stage was definitely in order. If the turn-around time is too long, I'll add a line in my bid that describes my assumptions in such cases.

Maybe you can find out what equipment is used to perform the washdowns and determine if it's capable of delivering water to the ceiling. That, of course, is a sword with two edges. Good luck!
 
It seems to me that if you are not able to make a determination from the plans or code as to just what is right for this situation, the only practical alternative is to have asked about it up front instead of doing the least expensive thing and hoping no one would care or notice.

I am not suggesting that is what you did, but I bet the idea that you did is lurking not all that far back in the customer's mind.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top