What Roland said plus. Item 1 cut the part about densities required. If they identify the hazard we contractors can find the densities. Then "classified as per the fire risk" What does that mean, how do you do it and how does it apply to 13? And "as per" what the hell does that mean (rant), "as" required or "per" NFPA but "as per"???? Then "how much water will it require to achieve the fire protection objective"? If you mean durations they are already listed in 13.
The answer to the third item is the remote area is where ever layout technician puts it. There can only be one "most" demanding area it will be where the system layout creates it, it's impossible to predict its location without knowing the pipe configuration. Item four "coordination" is a pie in the sky fantasy that will never happen. It's up to the subs to coordinate. I guess that only leaves item two. It would be nice if someone did a detailed water supply analysis but most civil engineers around here are great at domestic water models and the such but they don't have a clue when it comes to site fire flow requirements. When I ask the engineer how he intends to supply 4000 gpm to the onsite hydrants with an 8" city tap, 8" BFP and a 8" bypass around the pump I usually get silence followed by more silence. Just my 2 cents. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 7:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: engineering decisions Mike: You need to update (that is reduce) your list. First expand item 2 to identify the engineer needs to determine IF The water supply is adequate. I've never understood how an AE team can provide room for a pump and it's associated infrastructure if they don't know one is needed until a subcontractor tells them. Now break out the chain saw. The Third item is definitely to be thrown out. How can the EOR identify where the remote area is unless they are drawing lines and circles? Keep cutting and throw out item 4. The AHJ blesses the plans and do you really want a third party slowing you down for coordination? Although the engineering job assurance plan has this one listed, it is a contractual thing can implement IF the owner wants it but not a valid requirement. The exception to this statement are when BUILDINGS are designed on a performance basis that requires specific sprinkler criteria (that can exceed 13). Roland On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:15 AM, Mike Brown (TECH- GVL) wrote: > Actually, in several counties around Atlanta, the test was also > required for garden style apartments up to four stories. You would be > surprised that, at least in the beginning, a number of projects that > had full blown hydraulic calculations failed when the bucket test > showed them to be incorrect. Many times the main culprit was a water > test supplied by the water company that was faulty or not up to date. > Which brings me to my point that I have made over the years, the > "design" of sprinkler systems really involves four major decisions by > the design engineer and the rest is mostly a layout of a system within > the rules of the codes. > > First Engineering Decision: What is the hazard and what > densities are required. The project must be classified as per the > fire risk. What are you protecting and how much water will it require > to achieve the fire protection objective. > > Second Engineering Decision: What is the water supply and has > there been a detailed analysis and testing of the water supply? > Generally, engineers and others rely on water tests provide by others > and sometimes incorrect and out of date. Often very little time is > devoted by the engineer to insure that an adequate water supply at the > needed pressure is available. This does not mean just throwing in a > large fire pump just to be safe. > > Third Engineering Decision: Where is the remote area? It is easy to > just let the designer decide but the selection of the remote area can > change the hydraulics dramatically. > > Fourth Engineering Decision: Coordination and review of the plans. > The shop drawings and calculations may be checked and the coordination > with the other trades on the project. Often, the engineer just passes > these functions to a trainee or someone else within the engineering > firm. In other cases the issue is just ignored. > > Too often these decisions are not given the time and effort that they > deserve. > > > Michael L. Brown > Manager of Technical Services > The Reliable Automatic Sprinkler Company, Inc.' > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.reliablesprinkler.com > (864) 843-5228 > _______________________________________________ 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)
