We used to permit mostly shop drawings from the contractors, like those provided by my good friends over at Aero, because there were very few engineers who would submit drawings with enough information to meet the requirements in the code and NFPA 13. Occasionally, we'd get a registrant who insisted on us permitting his drawings, which we woould do, once they met the requirements of the codes and standards. Their original drawings may or may not have met the minimal requirement set by the Board of Technical Registration.
And occasionally we would work with an engineer who knew what he or she was doing. It was always a pleasure. Dwight ________________________________ From: "Mark A. Sornsin, P.E." <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 9:43 AM 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
