And this illustrates a point. The PE has just pulled a schedule out of his butt (sorry about the language Kevin but I'm an old dog and probably won't change--much to the chagrin of my wife who's been frustrated these 30 something years) and imposed it as a rationale model. Now a schedule is fine, we designed lots of still functioning systems to one, but the whole purpose of a schedule is to pre-engineer to such an extent that even people like me can follow it and not make too many design mistakes. On the other hand an engineer is supposed to use best engineering practices to provide value to the customer (I have copies of original plans of the Bonneville dam and powerhouse, for the War Department, 193?, that have the statement, "Value Engineering Saves Money" printed on each). One would think a structural engineer would be able to design a bracing system that had somewhat fewer braces than required by NFPA 13 since I believe it was modified to the conservative side so that the number crunching could be handled by us lowly techs without causing aneurisms.
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:03 AM, ParsleyConsulting <[email protected]> wrote: > Kevin, > > Don't let that one hit close to home, because when you ask questions and > look for assistance you're steps ahead of many > PE's who are operating well outside their area of experience and training. > > As for the "making bank" I agree, and I don't. I've heard the old saw > "bid it low and extra them into the land of profit" for > many years as an approach to the bidding process, and that bothers me to > no end. However, I'm involved with a sprinkler > contractor here in California who's run afoul of a PE who has made last > minute demands on the contractor for seismic > bracing which is well beyond the scope of NFPA-13, and wasn't a part of > the bid documents that they or their competitors > used when estimating the job costs. The number of braces on the system > if you follow NFPA-13 requirements is approximately > 18-20, however the demands made by the structural PE will increase that > number to over 190 braces (such as all branch > lines regardless of size or length to be provided with two lateral and > two longitudinal braces, braces to be located and 1/4 > or 1/3 points of pipe - not ZOI but pipe - for all mains, etc.). None > of that could have been anticipated or known because > he just made it up, and I don't want to do that to the owner, but I > don't want to do that to the sprinkler contractor either > because it definitely isn't his fault. > > The hostility is the result of surprises, which "someone else" is > expected to pay for because "they should have known". > > I will say this - I've yet to meet a sprinkler contractor who refused to > do something beyond the standard if it was made clear > to them on bid documents what was expected. > > Just my thoughts. > -- > PARSLEY CONSULTING > Ken Wagoner, SET > 760.745.6181 voice > 760.745.0537 fax > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> e-mail > www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com> website > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, WSAFM _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
