These questions always take me back to how far does the responsibility for something fall on the shoulders of a specialty contractor? Like I said in a previous post on this particular subject (responsibility for the structure) and on a thread apparently just falling off (responsibility for access panels) how far does this go. Do we need to hire our own soils engineer and structural engineer to make sure that the loads being restrained will be attached to a member that can handle it and that member is attached to an adequate member and so forth to the foundation and the suitability of the soil? What about a grid ceiling? Since our heads go through it are we required to restrain it or are we required to know that if it isn't restrained we need giant holes with ugly, unlisted "beauty rings" to compensate for our now too little escutcheons? And when the owner goes berserk because we needed to meet our standard is it our fault, the ceiling guy's fault, or the architect's since he's the one supposedly paid to coordinate all the design? This business about us (us being contractors or engineers) getting into the design process so late is my biggest pet peeve. Right now I'm busy designing 1500 feet of 1 1/2" main in each of eight apartments (the type with breezeways separating three distinct towers) instead of 1 1/4" main because the UG contractor brought his pipe into an exterior closet /riser room on an end tower instead of in the middle tower. This saved him ten feet of 2 1/2" pipe per unit. I don't even have to know much of anything about the building business to guess that the price difference between 12,000 feet of 1 1/2" compared to 1 1/4" CPVC (plus fittings) is more than 80 feet of 2 1/2" CPVC. If I know a little bit I'll also know I'll have happier, more productive fitters stuffing 1 1/4" compared to 1 1/2". Had I been at the A&E stage of this project I could have pointed to one of the two closets on the center tower and said, "Designate either of these as riser rooms but not the ones on the end towers. The hydraulics will be better." Or I could have at that time done some basic layout modeling and reduced the incoming UG to 2" and laid out the cross-over from tower to tower more efficiently saving everyone money. Now that I've whined and knowing we'll keep getting that detailed spec (install per NFPA 13) at the last minute I recommend putting lots of disclaimers in your contract such as, "We assume the building will be capable of handling all loads imposed by the sprinkler system and that at the time of initial design the structural engineer provided an adequate structural design to accommodate the sprinkler system." And, "We assume any drop ceiling grid to be seismically braced and that tiles will be clipped in place BY OTHERS." Etc. Sorry to go on so but this is my pet. And, by the way guys, I'm supposed to be on vacation so quit posting things that will fir up my blood.
On 8/3/07, Thom McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just as we must ask the Arch/Structural eng. if the building is required to > have seismic protection in the first place, if it is required we need to ask > if there are any components of the structure which cannot resist our lateral > and longitudinal loads, or if the Eng. has specific points he has identified > in his design to receive these loads. If he has points that are say 50' O.C. > we would then have to tell him we need more points closer together, for the > loads to meet our code (Standard) requirements. Yes this could go on and > become a long and involved process, one which those of you "Living On the > Fault Line" probably never need to deal with because your structural > engineers are so used to it. > > Thom McMahon > Firetech, Inc. > 2560 Copper Ridge Dr > Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 > Tel: 970-879-7952 > Fax: 970-879-7926 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 8:35 AM > Subject: RE: Sway Bracing > > > The question being, in the wording it makes it sound like it's the > sprinkler installers responsibility to make the determination of whether > or not the component you're attaching to is adequate for the seismic > loads. Don't think some wise guy GC or owner won't throw that back in a > FP contractors lap because it's in NFPA 13. > > That really needs to be reworded somehow. > > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection Group > Mechanical Department > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.lg.com > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland > Huggins > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:22 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Sway Bracing > > That isn't a new requirement, just slightly tweaked text. See > 9.3.5.1.2 in 02 it said carry the load vs resist the load. > > Roland > > On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:26 AM, Brooks, Bill wrote: > > > The 2007 edition has a new paragraph 9.3.5.1.2 stating: > > > > "The structural components to which bracing is attached shall be > > determined to be capable of resisting the applied seismic loads" > > > > Who introduced this requirement and how will it be implemented? > > Shouldn't > > this have been introduced into the IBC process instead? Will this > > mean sprinkler contractors will have to hire structural consultants? > > It seems this would be something that should be part of the shop > > drawing package. > > > > Bill Brooks > > Pittsburgh, PA > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject > > field) > > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
