All,

I am looking for input, in regards to required and "preferred" items of an Electrical Set, submitted for Plan Check.

Simply stated, what do you typically see / want to see / hate to see on Plans, and what specifics are common requirements for your Jurisdictions.

Threads exist in several areas regarding this topic, but I wish to drum-up discussions and examples in a dedicated new thread.

All replies are welcome.

Thank you in advance.

Scott

Scott:
From the 'reviewers' side (quickly for now)...

Biggest delay lately has been the tech card (permit app) and the plans not matching in items and quantities. It is amazing with the slow economy that the EC's miss/omit items, or have 'fudged' counts. I'm not referencing device counts, but what I refer to as 'major' items', panels, large equip., etc.

As to the quality of the plans...most are good..a few are really bad. Egress lighting circuitry, panel schedules, load calcs, one-lines, etc., not addressed.

The above results in reject notices, phone calls, etc., and often a call from 'Administration'...."what's the hold-up?"

John,

Thanks for the reply.

Will add comments after more responses have been posted.

Scott

It will be interesting to hear views from the EC's

Scott:
I'm making this a 'sticky' to see if anyone jumps in. Come on guys, plan review comments, EC's, reviewers, estimators, EE/PE/Arch!!

The only think I would say is you need those load calcs. We had a thread here recently about extending an existing circuit without and acknowledgment of what was already on it and what it served.

In the residential I see the plan is usually more of a guideline than an actual diagram of what they build, particularly if they are mastered. Pushing walls around usually changes outlet placement and it is very common that extra outlets get installed, either at customer request or to meet 210.52(A) requirements.

There are a few architects out there that are very gifted or they have a good computer drafting program and make beautiful diagrams that fall short on electrical specifications. It is not uncommon to see things missing or left so vague that the plans can not be approved. The reason for plan review is to lessen the possibility of installing a system that will not meet code. An virtual inspection if you want to call it that. Type of usage, wiring method, raceway fill, type of raceway, type of wire, clearances from other items in the room, arc flash calculations, available fault current, loads on circuits and feeders, riser diagram, specifications on equipment requirements, details on system grounding, available voltage from utility, panel ledgers, location of exits and emergency lighting equipment, circuiting, overcurrent protection and I'm sure I left out some. I find it rather lax for an architect or engineer or design professional to submit a plan that has a disclaimer that says "Subject to local Codes" or uses a rubber stamp that has generic wording that is only basic information that is might say "To be installed to the current version of the NEC". Find out from the Building Department which version of the NEC is in place and design to that. I have a punch list that is useful when I perform a plan review that help me remember things to check.

The State of Michigan has a firm policy that requires that plans are sealed by a licensed Architect or Engineer. While this certainly helps we still see a lot of plans that get sent back.

Greg:
100% in agreement with you on the resi plans. Basically they are just a 'cursory' submittal for the electrical & plumbing, and fire protection,but...much more critical for the building aspect.

A large majority lack HVAC, service location, service size, and circuitry...oh well.

PS: Nice to see a few jump in here.

John,

How about when a homeowner gives you a "sketch" of his kitchen with 1 or 2 receptacles.

I also love it when the architect shows the beautiful print of the job with not enough receptacles to meet code.

Another glitch, how about when someone summits an electrical tech sheet and you see that the "Lic" EC has an expired lic. number.

Greg, John and George;

Thanks for "Starting the Ball Rolling!"

I might post images of an Electrical Plan Set from some past Project, as an example of what I commonly include. Just need to make the posted stuff readable, and that's going to be really hard to do!
The best option for readability, would be to link the PDF versions for download, then the Plan Sheets may be viewed via a "PDF Reader" (i.e. Adobe Acrobat Reader).

Nevertheless, I really appreciate the contributions so far - and for John making this Topic a "Sticky Note".

Scott

I find it strange that any CAD program would screw up the receptacle placement on resi.
I have an ancient Windoze 3 version of 3D Architect that has always placed receptacles that meet 210.52(A). I never played with the "kitchen" on it so I am not sure if it is 210.52(B) aware.
It was interesting that Lee County took the plans I printed off of 3D architect for my addition (after the engineer stamped them) after 3 passes at plan review from his CAD program.
They may have just been tired of seeing me there tho.

My electrical plan went through on the first pass.

Greg:
It's not so much that the CAD programs have an issue; it's more like the info isn't requested of the program(s)

We see an issue with emergency panels and what can be in them. There seems to be a problem with folks grasping Legally required, optional, and emergency systems ( art. 700,701 & 702). Commercial Kitchen GFCI protected outlets get missed on the drawings alot, Patient care areas of medical offices is another missed item on the drawings.

I'm amazed at the drawings that come for review and the one line diagrams don't match the equipment drawn. (One line shows a 200 ampere panelboard and the drawings call for a 150)

My biggest problem with Architects is when they foolishly try to impress me with their poor grasp of electrical code. Please Mr. Architect, I know which receptacles need to be GFI protected. I laughed out loud in an Architect's face last year when every fixture was called a "Luminairie". Recently I've noticed a trend of calling the Master Bedroom the "Master's Bedroom". This is creepy on many levels.

I have made a career out of wiring high end custom homes and and the caliber of Architects in this industry is appalling. These near-do-wells have just recently discovered AFCI circuits and now they must call out every AFCI outlet in the house, it's so annoying, they are so convinced their code knowledge is superior to mine, I never miss an opportunity to embarrass one in front of the customer.

I was walking a job with one I call "Little Lord Faultleroy", a polished dandy with a brain as small as his bank account is large. He wanted Halo fluorescent cans with 100 watt lamps. Even had it on the plans. I informed this well coiffed clod that there was no such thing. He said he knew more about lighting than I did and that he would produce a catalog cut for me. I wound up installing 26 watt lamps, he never responded to request for the cuts...

I have never, in 30 years in construction, met an Architect that was not a poser or an outright impostor.

I worked with 1 Architect who absolutely floored me.

He asked if my Electric Closet was large enough, he went out of his way to stack them so I had a riser shaft, he pitched a fit when the other trades tried to run pipes through the room...so I asked the obvious question.

He had put himself through Architectural school with money that he made working construction for an Electrical Contractor between semesters.

He was the first (and so far the only) guy in that business I ever met who had a friggin' clue what we go through every day.

A quick comment on a job in review now (still)
Plans sealed by Arch & signed; 4th or 5th rev of E pages, one of which arrived today. Load calcs in panel schedule have math errors (addition). 225 amp fuses in 200 amp disco; 4x4/0 in 1-1/2" 'condit'....etc., etc.

John,


Do you ever get a good plan on the grounding, especially isolated grounding systems? I had several plans for schools which didn't even show anything about the ground system.

harold:
Yes, on occasion a really good (overboard) grounding (oops earthing) plan comes in.

Basically, IF 250 is not addressed on comm plans, it gets a reject letter. Most of the EE/PE/Arch include 250 items on the plans, and a lot of 'boiler plate' spec within the notes.

BTW, I just opened responses to a Nov. '09 rejection that is resubmitted, and it is going back to the reject pile, along with the appropriate letters.

Everyone;
Thanks so much for contributing to this discussion! We are getting some applicable topics to discuss, along with some "Good - vs - Bad" Plan submissions.

I would like to post a recently completed Plan Set for your review and opinions. Plan Sheets will be PDFs, with a link to the files (uploaded to my website).
First I need to mask or remove the Client's information, and the Building Department information too.

This Electrical Design-Build Project is a good example of a complex Electrical System, within an older, existing Light Industrial Building.

The most satisfying elements of this particular Project have been:

1: Received compliments from the Plans Examiner (Examiner was very appreciative of contents),

2: Inspections went very smoothly (ease of coordination between Plans -vs- Field Conditions, panel labeling + directories coordinate with Plans, aux. documents available for review),

3: Client is extremely satisfied with complete Design-Build, and has suggested our Services to others,

4: Project was profitable.

The Project was an Industrial T.I. within an existing 12,800 sq. ft. Concrete Tilt-Up, built in 1956.

Existing to remain Services (2):
a: 400 Amp; 120/240V 1Ø 3W "Lighting" Service - with KWH Meter,

b: 400 Amp; 240V 3Ø 3W "Power" Service - with KWH Meter...
(both Services derived from a single 4 wire Delta Pole mounted Transformer setup - supplied by the local Utility).

Client equipment includes:
a: (2) 40 HP Air Compressors, with 460V 3 Phase Squirrel Cage Motors (both run coincidentally > 3 Hours per day, 6 days a week),

b: (2) Sand Blast Booths, with 7.5 HP 230V 3 Phase Dust Collection Motors (both used coincidentally, > 3 Hours per day, 6 days a week),

c: (2) Gas Ovens with 5 HP 230V 3 Phase Blower Motors (both used coincidentally, > 3 Hours per day, 6 days a week),

d: (1) Paint Spray Booth, with 7.5 HP 230V 3 Phase Motor (used > 3 Hours per day, 6 days a week),

e: (4) 30 Amp, 120V "Warmers" - for fabrics and PVC setting (used >3 Hours per day, 6 days a week),

f: (1) 5 HP, 230V 3 Phase Banding Machine (used 15 min. per Hour, 6 days a week),

g: Misc. 120V < 20 Amp loads (intermittent, 6 days a week).

Design included a new 480V SDS for the Air Compressors:
240V Delta Primary x 480V 3 Phase 3 Wire Corner Grounded Delta Secondary (Phase "B" = Grounded Conductor).

Client builds and repairs Indoor & Outdoor Metallic Furniture - of medium to large sizes. Staff is active 6 days per week, 7.5 Hours per day (1/2 hr lunch). Equipment is in use up to 85% of the day, Monday through Saturday (excluding Holiday periods).

Will post link as soon as possible.
Looking for any and all comments + critique.

Scott

Scott:
Based on the above...
1: Congrats on the success.
2: I would be a happy guy IF I got info that you listed in the above post, as opposed to...3 exhaust fans?? and two rooftop HVAC units!

Hello everyone!!!

Instead of altering the Plans, in order to cover up the Client's name and our information (Electrical Contractor), I will send the Plans via E-mail per request.

Removing information will impact the Drawings' overall effects.

Please send a request message to me at this address:

support at setelectric dot net

The address is written Phoenetically, so:
1: replace "at" with "@",
2: Replace "dot" with ".",
3: Remove any spaces between words or symbols, so the address looks like:
suxxort@sxxelxxxxic.net

Let me know if your Mail Server can receive messages larger than 6MB.

Thanks in advance.

Scott

El-Bump'o

I am contemplating placing the Plans on my site again.

Any input?

Scott

El-Bump'o - Again!!!

Any comments???

P.M. me if preferred.

Scott