George,
Replacing a 3" main because of MIC is very different than replacing
an entire system. On the situation you described, I agree that it is
a maintenance issue and analysis and hydraulics are not necessary. My
rhetorical question is at what point does maintenance end and a new
system begin?
Being a cynical PE, I don't always accept that what was done before
is necessarily correct. In my history of doing 3rd party review,
approximately 2/3 of the drawings have been rejected the first time
around due to technical errors. That and some of the things that I
have seen AHJs miss, make me take a second look at everything. When I
see a main replacement come across my desk I try to take a look and
see if what we have for a design appears to be OK. If I have to
prepare drawings to submit for a main replacement, because the
contractor cannot get a permit without a stamped drawing, I want to
be covered. I will typically push for a letter from the AHJ stating
that he accepts the present installation and there is no need for
analysis. Or if there is an issue, sometimes I will flash my PE
plumage and say we may have a problem and see where it goes. It's
something I see as my professional responsibility but also a little
bit of CYA. I want to have some basis for my actions in case I'm
dragged into court if something happens.
As you say, if you want credibility, you need to earn it.
At 06:05 PM 1/12/2011, you wrote:
This is pretty basic, and certainly there are exceptions for every rule.
Existing system, we're to assume it was designed, installed and
tested in accordance with applicable codes/laws at that time, pipe schedule.
No change in occupancy, same owner doing same processes.
You're replacing a 3" main because of MIC.
You're going to somehow find a requirement to provide calcs for the
MRA, using 3/4" end lines?
Could be adding 30% to the MRA for that sloped roof that didn't
impact the pipe schedule?
So your calcs show it massively undersized.
You go to the owner and point out he needs to replace the existing
4" lead-in with 8", new city tap and pit, new 6" riser to replace
the 4" that is functional and meets code cause the new requirements
aren't retroactive. He looks at the $85,000 you want to add to
replacing a couple lengths of pipe- or a 600' run- to get rid of some drippage.
Think he's opening up his checkbook to give you a deposit?
Or is he kicking your butt out the door for trying to sell him
something he's NOT required to do?
If you want credibility, you need to earn it. You could tell em its
prudent, but if he's not getting sky-high insurance quotes or the
AHJ isn't padlocking his door, then I doubt he'll be doing anything
but replacing the 3". And likely it will be someone other than you
doing the work.
George Church'
Rowe Sprinkler
[email protected]
570-837-7647
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Williams
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Hydraulic Calcs
If a system is installed that is an exact duplicate of an existing
system, which it is to replace, is that considered a new system
under the Code or a "repair" of a system under 25? Where is the
cut-off between the two? How would any of the AHJ's out there address this?
Now George, supposed your building has 12ft storage of expanded
plastics or flammable liquid storage? Most likely the pipe schedule
system is not going to be able to protect those occupancies. Would
you swap the system old for new as it was installed? How would the
attorney for the plaintiff react to that?
I didn't even bring up the issues about 3/4", 3-1/2" and 5" pipe.
At 12:33 PM 1/12/2011, you wrote:
>So you run new UG into a building that was legally pipe schedule
>because the calc (that wasn't required under the valid but old design
>criteria) doesn't work? It doesn't have to, its designed to the
>applicable code at installation.
>
>George Church'
>Rowe Sprinkler
>[email protected]
>570-837-7647
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected]
>[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd
>Williams
>Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:20 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Hydraulic Calcs
>
>Ok, so in Doug's situation, it constitutes a new installation and not
>repair work (based on your first statement) and it is based on a prior
>design. However, as a new installation wouldn't the design need to meet
>current Codes irregardless of when the design was done and probably
>require hydraulic calculations?
>
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)
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)
