It's all based on expectations (the AHJ, not the engineer). The plumbing AHJ expects to see plans (with piping shown) as well as risers for plumbing systems - not to mention in NJ its spelled out in terms of what is required to be shown. The fire protection AHJ understands that the drawing is for general information and that the contractor will provide the actual construction details.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Bill Brooks <[email protected]>wrote: > Take it from me - it is a small sum, generally some percentage of the > overall construction cost as doled out by the architect. For some reason we > can do performance sprinkler design but the plumbers still draw piping > diagrams showing the cold on the right and the hot on the left. Why that > can't be performance I'm not sure. > > (It's Friday) > > Bill Brooks > > William N. Brooks, P.E. > Brooks Fire Protection Engineering Inc. > 372 Wilett Drive > Severna Park, MD 21146-1904 > 410-544-3620 > 410-544-3032 FAX > 412-400-6528 Cell > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark > A. > Sornsin, P.E. > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:44 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Hazard classification > > I've shared this before I think, but it seems apt again: > > I once pursued an A/E project where I felt the owner was seeking actual > engineering from the engineer of record for the fire sprinkler system. I > suggested to our team that we propose doing just that and sell ourselves as > providing a complete design for the sprinkler contractors to bid > apples-to-apples. The mechanical engineer on the team (from a different > company) suggested that taking on the design of the sprinkler system might > be taking on too much risk/liability (after all, MEs are used to > performance > specs - usually without the performance part - my words not his). > > That solidified my understanding of the MEs' approach to fire sprinkler > systems. Not sure how they justify receiving payment for what they provide > (unless it's a really small sum). > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Craig > Leadbetter > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 5:52 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Hazard classification > > Dwight, > > I love the optimism that there is actually a spec to look at that says more > than provide a system per code. No mention of commodities types on the > plans > and if I asked I have sure I would get the deer in the head lights look. > > This has been great discussion on this topic, it confirms that my area of > the country is not the only one that provides more questions than answers. > I > believe that most systems we see are under analyzed from a fire suppression > stand point. Most engineers appear to be so afraid to put anything in > writing when it comes to fire protection that we generally get an "X" > through the drawings with a note to provide per all codes and insurance > requirements, and add any additional heads at no cost to the owner. > > Craig Leadbetter > > _____________________ > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
