Can you really blame the feds for that? Did a private PE do them? -----Original Message----- From: Todd Williams <[email protected]> Sender: [email protected] Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2010 11:47:33 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: USACE Velocity
Another reason for simple, clear and precise specs without all of the BS normally in there. There is no reason for a 54 page specification to relocate 20 heads, even from the Feds. At 11:26 AM 12/29/2010, you wrote: >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) 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] (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] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
