This spec, that has no code basis, is a great reason why "lesser" contractors end up with these jobs. When you put a job out to public bid and you have 20 FP contractors bid on it, the winner will almost always be the one that missed this type of spec. The type of bidder that does diligence and finds these weird specs and bids accordingly is probably the FP contractor that the owner would like to see get the job but will likely end up with the one that 'misses' this type of spec. Thus the saying "low bidder built this thing"
If you want big pipe, say so! If you don't want a 1" grid, say so! But, I gotta say, I don't know how suspending bigger pipe, makes a structure last longer. Gary Stites 661-213-9379 www.rlhfp.com www.sprinklersoft.net Pandora Station http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh43464983213902734 On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you have a link? I'm being (L)azy today as I'm on (b)reak and it > (s)nowed. The RG equation is 1b + 1s = 3L > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 8:08 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Todd, > > Nothing is "snuck" in and there is definitely no entrapment. It is in > plain > > English in the spec. It is the contractor's responsibility to read all > of > > the specification and ask for any clarification that he thinks is needed. > A > > clarification or amendment for one also for all bidders. > > > > Quite frankly, it does help to clarify the reasoning, on this forum, > behind > > some of the requirements. I like open discussions such as these. > However, > > always remember that the spec is a contract document regardless of what > it > > requires no matter how ridiculous it may seem. Everybody bids the same > set > > of contract documents. > > > > By the way, Hazen-Williams is not all some believe it is. It works > fairly > > well with water based sprinkler systems as long as it is applied > correctly. > > New sprinkler systems with reasonable flows, pressures, velocities, and > > temperatures will do OK with H-W. > > > > One example is working with aged versus new pipe. There is no clear cut > > methodology to compensate for the added roughage other than lowering the > > C-factor. Once you try to get below C=100 you are in no man's land. I > > suggest that everyone reads the original works of H&W and see for > > themselves. It is free on Google Books as the copyright has expired. > > > > > > > > Rahe Loftin > > Sent from my Blackberry > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Todd Williams [[email protected]] > > Sent: 12/29/2010 10:39 AM EST > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: USACE Velocity > > > > > > > > If you want a safety factor in the design include ONE plainly stated > safety > > factor and be done with it. They all typically accomplish the same thing, > so > > keep it simple. Unless you are trying to trip up contractors in the > bidding > > process to keep the prices down, there is no reason to do sneak all of > this > > little stuff in a spec. > > > > At 09:57 AM 12/29/2010, you wrote: > >> > >> One last thing to note about the velocity restrictions: their use helps > to > >> continue the myth throughout engineering circles that they are a > necessity. > >> I am certain most engineers who see a GSA spec with the velocity > >> restrictions aren't thinking it is there merely to give a larger safety > >> factor. Instead they are thinking things like :'high velocity is bad for > >> pipes'; 'it is too noisy'; 'the H-W equation is invalid at high > velocities', > >> etc. So they continue to keep it within THEIR specs, which are seen by > other > >> engineers and AHJs - and the myths of velocity restrictions continue. > >> > >> And if there is a desire to keep the restrictions in place strictly for > >> the more robust design, then please explain it in the specs, so the > myths > >> aren't promulgated. 'As an additional safety factor, all pipe velocities > >> shall be limited...' At least then if the design goes awry the > >> designer/engineer can come back and explain why the restriction should > be > >> lifted for their particular case. > >> > >> Mark A. Sornsin, PE | Fire Protection Engineer > >> Ulteig Engineers, Inc. |Fargo, ND > >> Direct: 701. 280.8591 | www.ulteig.com > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron > Greenman > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 5:40 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: USACE Velocity > >> > >> Given your argument maybe the oversized main/velocity restriction is > >> just a simpler way to get desired results in most cases but your > >> example points to the less than most cases and is valid. And maybe a > >> simple way to beat the devil isn't any more warranted than designing > >> to the extreme least costly. Comes back to the fact that some projects > >> are less critical than others and lend themselves to the low bid at > >> any cost philosophy, some have higher goals that can be dealt with by > >> using rule of thumb requirements, and some are so high value that > >> neither approach works, but since each project is unique until > >> defined. Each has to be analyzed and assessed, the cost of that > >> assessment being commensurate with the benefit of paying for it.Mark's > >> example requires a lot of value engineering to avoid very high > >> unnecessary costs, a strip mall or the latest Meth Lab Manor apartment > >> complex needs to be low-balled, while most projects may be somewhere > >> in between. > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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]<to%[email protected]> > >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > > > Todd G. Williams, PE > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > Stonington, CT > > 860.535.2080 > > www.fpdc.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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]<to%[email protected]> > > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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]<to%[email protected]> > > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering Technology > Bates Technical College > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > [email protected] > > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > 253.680.7346 > 253.576.9700 (cell) > > Member: > AFSA, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, NFSA, AFAA, ASEE, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > _______________________________________________ > 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]<to%[email protected]> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Gary Stites 661-213-9379 www.rlhfp.com https://sites.google.com/site/nbcjudah/ https://sites.google.com/site/moondogscc/ www.sprinklersoft.net Pandora Station http://www.pandora.com/?sc=sh43464983213902734 _______________________________________________ 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)
