And don't let me forget that. On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Rod DiBona <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks Roland. This is how we will proceed. Didn't see your post before my > reply went out. Bill, I know you would need a lot more information but I > certainly don't expect you or anyone on this forum to do a full analysis for > me. I already owe Ron G. a double at the next convention, it wouldn't be > respectful of your time or anyone else's to ask for that much work. Thought > I would just get everyone's opinion before the call. > > Rod > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 10:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: building code tradeoff > > what George said with the following comments. > > We have a history of actually doing the system "design" (used in a non- > engineering reference but in compliance with NFPA 13) that we have a hard > time NOT doing it. That is the EOR's job. Now as a valuable team member > with applicable knowledge, one should bring it to the attention of the EOR > (well AOR since we are talking about an architect) then ACCEPT their > decision. Now naturally you do it in writing so when the AHJ rejects it, > you are covered. > > Having said that, a general code discussion is always entertaining. > There seems to be multiple problems with the planned approach. The biggie > has already been stated (regarding protection throughout in order to get a > trade-off). On that same issue, there are also significant restrictions on > applying trade-offs fro sprinklers when one applies the reduction on fire > rating. > > Partial protection is a code issue is NOT defined by NFPA 13 > > > On May 27, 2011, at 3:01 AM, George Church wrote: > > > Are you asking: > > what is proper protection under the IBC as a minimum? > > What is required under #13? > > What is the scope of work that you are to include in your bid? > > > > From the sound of your question, you're the BCO and wondering whether > > to accept this protection strategy; however, I'll bet you should focus > > on what they've asked for you to provide. > > DON'T take on the role of the EOR, the Architect has defined the work > > as he sees it in his professional opinion. You're not entitled to one. > > > > > > George L. Church, Jr., CET > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
