The complaint here is not about the engineering, but the
installation. We are talking about what is physically in the
building. You're a PE, Jeff; how many times has an installer changed
your drawings? My guess is a lot. I know in my situation, I am rarely
asked to certify an installation once it is complete. I don't hold up
anybody's money and I don't hold up the CO. Then the last eyes for
seeing the job was done right is the AHJ. If it is not caught there,
that's how it remains. The fault may well be with the specifying
engineer (if there is one), but it may lie elsewhere.
At 10:07 PM 4/2/2008, you wrote:
Sorry for the late reply to Mark's comments, I've been travelling all day.
I saw this and felt compelled to repeat my previous thoughts on
this issue. Mark's comments bring me to a statement that I have
made on here before, and I will likely again, the next time this comes up.
You cannot just complain about this PE issue. Turn them
in!! There is no other way. Their regulating Boards can do
nothing without a complaint, and for that matter thay will NOT even
know about it, unless WE speak up and do something about it.
Yes, that's right, an engineer telling you to turn in a fellow
engineer. I will not defend anyone that claims this or anything
else as an area of expertise when they are not actually qualified.
Turn them in! And don't get fed up if nothing happens right
away. Their investigations may take a while.
Again, rather than seeing all of these complaints about inept
specifying engineers, let's all do something different now, or it
will only get worse.
Gather your facts, file the complaint, and turn them in.
Jeff Hewitt, PE, SET, MSFPE (Professional Member)
Corporate Engineer
Bi-State Fire Protection Corporation
St. Charles, MO 63301
Mark Sornsin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
When I "look up" at work that is incorrect, I always wonder if there was
an engineer of record involved on the project. Then I wonder how much
money they were paid to be the "engineer of record." Then I wonder how
much time they actually spent on their "performance spec" that included
no performance criteria outside of references to code.
Obviously, mine is a cynical perspective of my colleagues in the
engineering world. I certainly understand the reality that there aren't
enough skilled engineers to be involved on all sprinkler projects. To
say the typical "performance spec" is criminal may be excessive (maybe
they couldn't get enough fee to do the project justice...?) But I do
know that all engineers who rely on their blanket statement about
systems "meeting code" (but don't have the ability to verify compliance)
to are teed-up nicely to lose the litigation battle should a fire ever
occur. As Chris has reminded us, there seem to be an inordinate number
of screwed up systems out there, so it's really a wonder why more
engineers aren't brought to task through litigation. Sometime I wonder
if it is because of the ironic fact that "everyone" knows the mechanical
engineer is not the expert - it's the sprinkler contractor. So
engineers are forgotten when problems arise...???
Don't mean to tangent into another PE-bashing thread, but it just peeves
me that there are "professionals" getting paid for being lazy fools.
Mark A. Sornsin, PE
Fire Protection Engineer
Ulteig Engineers, Inc.
Fargo, ND
701.280.8591
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris
Cahill
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Do you look up?
I imagine, like me, you all (ya'll for some of you) on the very rare
occasions you are not working look around at sprinkler systems where you
live, shop and play.
It's a very rare occasion I don't see something that appears deficient.
For
example, in a grocery store the one head on the back side of the main is
missing over HPS and a mess of piping creating a ceiling without heads
under
them, at a Home Depot 190 psi on the wet side of an auxiliary dry valve,
or
the local high school with sidewall heads about 15-20' down from the
peak of
the very large skylight. This is all in the last two days as an example
but
see similar all the time.
The sad part is I'm not really trying. What if I had the plans and
calcs,
how much more would there be? Or really looked at the whole building
instead of a casual look at where I happen to be? Or the scary part
what if
I actually considered the hazard vs. the design?
I also realize two issues - most times what I see probably won't cause
the
system to fail in a fire IF that is the only thing wrong. There is a
"probably" and an "if " in the last sentence which means there are cases
that will fail, just not many IMHO. And second we make mistakes too.
The heads at the peak - just because an AHJ didn't call it a deficiency
doesn't mean it's OK. Certainly it is possible there is a documented
and
proactively approved alternate method out there on this but I strongly
doubt
it. Now I'm sure the missing head has a perfectly rational explanation
of
how it got like that. The W.O. is there and it must be plugged or the
system is off. It's not a TI thing long after the original
construction;
this is a very new building. Can't rationalize how you get 190 psi by
accident or approval.
MN is more regulated than most (but not all) areas. Do you see this
stuff
too? What if anything can you really do about it?
Chris Cahill, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Sentry Fire Protection, Inc.
763-658-4483
763-658-4921 fax
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: P.O. Box 69
Waverly, MN 55390
Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW
Waverly, MN 55390
_______________________________________________
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)
Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
www.fpdc.com
860.535.2080
_______________________________________________
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)
