2.4 KiB
id, title, tags, date-created, daily
| id | title | tags | date-created | daily | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-01T16:36:31-0400 | 2026-04-01 16:36:31 |
|
2026-04-01T16:36:31-04:00 | 2026-04-01 |
2026-04-01 16:36:31
My peer working on virginia-live-casino-and-hotel pointed out the raised floor system used in the gaming area. They asked if MC cable would be acceptable for a mechanical connection in the area. I replied that it would be acceptable according to the nfpa-70_national-electric-code, but that I wouldn't be surprised if it was specifically forbidden by the specifications. In response they asked what would be acceptable assuming that MC cable was not. I said immediately "EMT", but corrected myself that PVC is also code permissible, and they would need to rule it out before jumping to EMT.
I pointed out that this consideration was also relevant to the floor boxes shown in the same area. The heating designations built for the purpose by the previous estimator used PVC. These were likely built from the existing floor box assemblies without modification.
At this, the estimator and I discussed wiring method selection in general. For the jobs the two of us are assigned, PVC is usually never acceptable except underground or in-slab, however I explained that this is due to near universal specification, not code compliance. It is apparently typical of Florida jobs to run PVC in most areas we would expect to use EMT, even where in plain view.
The estimator said their strategy is to assume EMT assemblies with the expectation that they may need to substitute them following conest-senior-review. This is a heuristics in that it achieves an outcome acceptable to the estimator despite being objectionable according to established1 conest practice.
Many seniors would expect that every estimator know how to determine acceptable wiring method selection for arbitrary construction considerations given the project documents. This is a deceptively naive expectation:---
What is acceptable according to the drawings and specifications is frequently in contradiction with what was sold, which is frequently in contradiction with what was believed to be sold. Determining "acceptability" then, is nontrivial for estimators who, by all rights, ought not have to concern themselves with resolving ambiguity so egregious it ought to be reprimanded.
-
As far as it can be said to be established... ↩︎