Major, major problem. I don't let students touch a calculation program until they have an understanding that there can be multiple design areas, that the single most demanding may be the one closest to the riser (high bay factory with EH2 area next to the riser and a single story office structure attached to at the other end), that the only way to tell is to analyze the entire building then calc all the distinct areas that you cannot argue will be less demanding than others. And then they have to prove proficiency at hand calcs. I know Cecil also makes his kiddies hand calc. As old guys we know how (well, he's not so old). As educators we have the luxury (employers doing the training can get production out of a new hire by just teaching them how to use the program). As educators we both know better than to rely on what Swede Johanssen told us he'd always done as an article of faith and have the time to learn. And here's the advertisement: With the big boys gone, the guys with enough wealth to absorb true training (you Automatic guys know what I'm talking about) in-house training by small companies is, not in every case but on the whole, going to produce designers (I'm going to use the word in spite of our PEs since we all do do design, like it or not) without the "history" of the technology and therefore of lesser skill. This will become an increasing problem as more of the old breed retire and new guys begin training newer guys. You guys need to start looking at the schools. But not for guys that can hit the ground running. I'll be the first to admit that my graduates will need lots of supervised truing when hired. This is not because they aren't trained but because school training is, and ought to be, broad and inclusive, giving the student a solid background for learning everything that will confront him as he progresses in a career over a lifetime. School is teaching a man to fish. Typical truing at a company is giving a man a fish, then another, then another….
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 7:44 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes I agree Ron, as stated below. Physically remote does not necessarily > have anything to do with hydraulically remote. But when you review calcs you > often find that the "remote area" used by the designer is in most cases the > physically remote. They took a guess and plotted a line around the group of > sprinklers farthest from the system riser. You can easily spot the > Hydraulically remote heads in the calc but I wonder with the invention of > automated systems if most designers even understand what all those numbers > and stuff mean. Pressing the <CALCULATE> button doesn't mean actually you > know what's going on in the system you've just designed. > > > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Greenman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 9:59 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Prahl, Craig/SPB > Subject: Re: As = L x S > > Shall we all make a pact right here and follow Duane and quit using > the term "remote area" and instead shift to "most hydraulically > demanding area(s)" or just "most demanding area(s)?" The term remote > confuses new techs as well as many seasoned ones (techs in this sense > also includes engineers that are equally confused) and is a > mythological memory of a distant past when most sprinklered buildings > were warehouses and factories, primarily large (not to be confused > with "Big") boxes, where the terms most demanding and remote were > typically synonymous. One obvious area out in the south forty is > rarely the case any longer. Let's toss the "term" remote along with > the some of the more idiotic explanations I've heard here for the 52K > ft^2 limitation, the FD lost looking for the FDC (that they really > use) reasons for a WMG, etc. As B & J used to say, "Thank you for your > support." > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 5:40 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> If you are referring to the area of coverage of the individual sprinkler you >> should use the actual area the sprinkler is covering not the maximum >> allowable. If you have sprinklers spaced where they cover only 90 square >> feet due to obstructions or other construction issues, use that value >> regardless whether or not your maximum allowable spacing may have been 130 >> square feet. >> >> You are only calculating the sprinklers in the hydraulically remote area >> unless you are calculating a deluge system. >> >> Craig L. Prahl, CET >> Fire Protection >> CH2MHILL >> Lockwood Greene >> 1500 International Drive >> Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 >> Direct - 864.599.4102 >> Fax - 864.599.8439 >> CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >> [email protected] >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> [email protected] >> Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 1:36 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: As = L x S >> >> Hi >> I understand that I need to use the maximum AS (sprinkler coverage) to run >> the hydraulic calculations. Is This AS should be taken from only the >> sprinklers in the remote area, or should be for the entire system??? >> Regards >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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) >> > > > > -- > 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: > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > -- 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: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, 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] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
