Good point. Yet the calcs should have been reviewed by the engineer and maybe the local ahj. But in the real world... Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
----- Reply message ----- From: "George Church" <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Engineers Stamp vs. Seal Date: Wed, Aug 31, 2011 9:23 am I'm not surprised there are errors after state review. In PA, the DOH asks that we not include the calcs since they don't review them. I certainly hope PennDOT looks at the structural calcs on bridge work, can't understand how a state agency charged with compliance can do so without looking at the hydraulic calcs. To me, that would leave them open to gross negligence when (not if) someone is hurt or dies. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of njarendt tds.net Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 10:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Engineers Stamp vs. Seal Interesting discussion and just a side point. As I review plans for the fire department I do require a signature, date and stamp of the design professional under whose direction the hydraulic calcs and layout were prepared. I do not say PE or ME But I do want to know who is responsible for the layout and calcs. The State also requires the same. In the end I do not approve of the layout but accept it once I verify that it meets all the code requirements since the signer is accepting responsibility for the layout and calcs. I have found input errors and errors in layout even after the State has reviewed the plans first. If I have questions it is the person whose signature I have on the layout that I talk to. Simplifies our review considerably. Norm On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Mark Sornsin <[email protected]>wrote: > Those in the business since the 1970s please correct me if I'm wrong: > > It's been my impression that there is another factor at work, and that > is the fact that fire sprinkler design once used to be relatively > simple - you went to NFPA 13 for your spacing rules and pipe schedule > information, etc. > Design was more akin to plumbing design. Hence, the engineers > relegated it to their techs. Many engineering plans I've seen from > the 1960s show pipe layouts and sizes - not often run in logical > locations (e.g. branch lines parallel to the joists), but certainly > far closer to reality than today's efforts by most engineering firms. > > As time went on technology and progress changed the game, the > engineers were too out of it to notice. Then all of a sudden, > sprinklers were being required in more and more buildings - yet most > didn't bother to change. And here we are. > > To be fair, I know of a few MEs who recognize this issue and have done > something about it. They have either avoided fire sprinkler > specifying, or they have gotten educated. In both cases they are being > true to their professional engineering code of ethics. As far as I'm > concerned it's criminal that more haven't altered their practice in one of > these two ways. > > I don't claim to be a perfect PE; but I accept my limitations. I have > never signed an HVAC or plumbing drawing, despite my ME degree. I wish > the same were true of the MEs who don't know fire suppression. > > Mark A. Sornsin, PE| Fire Protection Engineer Ulteig Engineers, Inc.| > Fargo, ND [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Engineers Stamp vs. Seal > > That points to one of my favorite things about this controversy: When > there wasn't much going on techs were sufficient but when there became > real and sustained money to be made all of a sudden inexperienced > engineers became more knowledgeable by legislative fiat than thirty year > veteran techs. > Wizard of Oz stuff. > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:29 AM, 321 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ----Original Message----- > > From: > > [email protected][mailto: > > [email protected]] > > On Behalf Of A.P.Silva > > Sent: Monday, August 29, 2011 12:19 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: Engineers Stamp vs. Seal > > > > Was it different before 30 years? > > > > Tony > > > > ...about 35 years ago the only work we were doing was insurance > > mandated warehouse and commercial property conservation systems for > FM...IRI,etc. > > When > > the codes changed during the boom in the late 70's ~ early '80's the > > PE community decided that they needed to get in on the action. About > > 10% of the PE's involved in Fire Sprinklers here in Florida know > > what they are doing and are pretty sharp...the rest of them are clueless. > > > > > > John W. Farabee > > Vice President Fire Sprinkler Operations State License No. > > 20251600012010 > > 1480 SW 3RD Street Suite 9 > > Pompano Beach, Fl 33411 > > 954-785-7800 800-372-2770 Telephone > > 954-785-7804 Fax > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: George Church <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" > > <[email protected]> > > Sent: Mon, August 29, 2011 3:45:36 PM > > Subject: RE: Engineers Stamp vs. Seal > > > > No. > > Maybe even worse. > > I remember in mid/late 70's we'd explain to the PEs what the reams > > of computer printouts meant (generated by the mainframe in Cleveland > > HQ by guys in white coats on raised > > floors) > > After we got done our explanation, they'd stamp em approved and send > > em back to us. > > > > Yes, this is when fittings were threaded then a 1'-6 pce TG to a > > grooved > > coupling- > > > > I believe the cost of two 6" grooved 90's and 4 couplings was the > > same as > > 16 > > hours of Local 692 labor in Phila. > > We had 5" and 3.5", and a lot of 1-1-1.25.......still have those > > memorized, even above and below. > > > > Frankly, I think it more important to focus on getting sprinklers in > > houses rather than licensing laws. > > We'd save more people, create a larger market, and we have actually > > achieved our goals in some pockets, one of them being PA for 4 months. > > Whereas, are there ANY jurisdictions where FPEs specify all > > criteria, give us corrected flow tests for basis of calcs, on 90% or > > more of projects? > > I'll wager none on Earth except Lake Woebegone, just up the Red > > River from Fargo, where all the children are above average, and there's a > > PTA. > > > > I was told once that getting drunk drivers off the road would save > > more lives than all our residential sprinklers- and at 3,000 annual > > deaths vrs 55,000 for drunks killing us, can't say I could argue. > > I just kept pushing for resi sprinklers, tho. I don't own an > > insurance company. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20110830/0388bf44/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20110831/22f7410b/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
