Agree Ron, these are definitely two of the top reasons. But also and as much as anything else, fire sprinkler plan reviewers are simply getting better trained and more technical and a big part of that is the influx of civilian plan review specialists who are being hired to do this work, many of whom are professional engineers or who have an engineering or design background. I can think of several municipalities and State Agencies in Southern California alone who have or use plan reviewers in house or on outside contract who are experienced fire sprinkler designers or PE's or who have background in disciplinary designs other than sprinklers, including structural. The shock to our system is when long-practiced standards of care from the mechanical and structural engineering communities are applied to sprinkler plans for the first time ...
Steve L. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 10:18 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: seismic bracing calcs I think the reason we are so far behind other trades is that for years and years fire sprinklers were considered a necessary evil and not an integral part of the building system. And in years past building structures weren't engineered to save every ounce of steel so supporting the added weight of a sprinkler system was no big deal. Ron F -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 10:27 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: seismic bracing calcs This goes to perpetuate the notion that we're different or special and that's good and okay. I respectfully disagree - it's not. Every other discipline is required to structurally engineer their supports, coordinate loads and attachments closely with the structural engineer, show calculations for all of that and seismic support where required. Why are we different - because we haven't been doing that the last 30 years while all the other building systems have moved forward to what are now the widely considered good practices for attaching building systems to structure? Sorry, but if that's true then we're a bunch of retards who are allergic to change and that's a decidedly bad thing. I cannot tell you how many seismic braces I've seen attached to the bottom of composite I-joists. Not the bottom of the web, the flat bottom of the bottom chord. Or to the web of an 8" 20-gauge Z-purlin. Or to an unreinforced metal deck. Is that okay because, "We've always done it like that?" I've seen 4" main trapezed between two 16" I-joists with a 2x4 - everyone cool with that? Never mind the 2x4, we know that's not cool but can those joists handle it? Why do we think that the manufacturers of engineered wood structural products all now publish sprinkler hanger and bracing handbooks? BECAUSE THESE ARE ENGINEERED SOLUTIONS, that's why. So if you don't have a pre-engineered solution you have to design one, i.e. coordinate your attachment points, calculate your seismic braces, verify with structural that the building can handle the loads you're applying. We are currently working on a storage facility with poor water pressure and the structural engineer redesigned the roof structure to support the several dozen feet of 8" we've been forced to use to avoid a pump. No big deal, just had to show him our design. To not take it to this degree of detail, i.e. to coordinate your work with the affected work of other disciplines (structural) in the year 2014 is not an adequate degree of diligence, IMHO <CRACK!!> Oops, my soapbox just broke. Steve Leyton -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Denhardt Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 9:12 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: seismic bracing calcs Agree 100%! John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated 5113 Berwyn Road College Park, Maryland 20740 Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven Scandaliato Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 5:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: seismic bracing calcs Well that's were we are going to disagree...I haven't put tick marks on a dwg or required them on a dwg since I can't remember. if a licensed contractor who employs certified (licensed in some states) fitters who cannot read a tables that tells him where to put a hanger based a pipe size then we got way bigger problems than seismic features... Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. From: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 4:04 PM To: [email protected] Reply To: [email protected] Subject: RE: seismic bracing calcs It's a miracle if they remember to show hangers on drawings and they're actually legible. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Lead CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive Spartanburg, SC 29303 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 CH2MHILL Extension 74102 [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of rongreenman . Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 4:33 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: seismic bracing calcs You ought to be demanding it in that detail, Craig. On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:36 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Steven, > > I have never received a contractor shop drawing that covered things to > the detail you describe. It's often a wonder to get the basic > information on the drawings like pipe elevations and hangers let alone > anything to the depth you describe. > > I don't disagree with your statement just saying, I've never seen it > happen. > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection Group Lead > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > Spartanburg, SC 29303 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Steven > Scandaliato > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 11:00 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: seismic bracing calcs > > Wait...hold on...just to make sure, and Craig I am sure you probably > know this...BUT we have a lot more than just calcs for braces that > have to be addressed. We have 4 other design features that have to be addressed. > Cplgs, clearance, separation and restraint. This is a weakest link > kinda thing...so just because we have braced a system does not mean it > is designed for seismic...we have to put flex and rigid cplgs where > they go, we have to show that we have accounted for clearance where it > applies, we have to acknowledge that there is no separation required > if applicable and we have to show and space b'line restraint. Seismic > design demands its own sheets and symbols and sheet installation notes > etc. Do not try and pile all of this onto an already unreadable > piping plan. EOR or Shop design, all of these categories must be > addressed in the documents....and by the way, putting 4-ways and every > change of direction is not a design feature required or intended by > 9.3. I see a lot of contractors do that thinking they are in > compliance. This may be a great cost saver or standardized thing you > want to do with your fitters but it does not automatically put you in compliance with 9.3....just sayin. > > One other note while I am on this, we all need to pay better attention > to restraint. I still have many AHJs and contractors alike that > haven't heard of it. If seismic is required then restraint is > required. This isn't optional. And pay attention to the spacing > requirements for it. Many, including myself, have fallen into the > "end of line" mentality and think that is the only place we have to > have it...but if you have long branchlines, you definitely will have more than "end of line" locations. > > With Sicilian Love, > > Steven Scandaliato, SET CFPS > 520.971.2322 Cell > Skype: steven.scandaliato > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > rongreenman . > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 9:41 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: seismic bracing calcs > > Cliff's opinion is right. > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 6:49 AM, Cliff Whitfield > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Craig, > > > > If you don't calc it, how do you know it works? That would be like > > sending in drawings with 'hydraulically calculated pipe sizes' with > > no hydraulic calcs to prove the sizes are correct. Just not happening. > > > > A lot of 'East Coast' contractors/designers (I fit in that category > > even though I now live in Colorado) just show braces on their > > drawings but it's not even close to being the correct way to do it. > > They need to take the time to learn from the AFSA classes that Ken > > Wagonner and others do so that they can do it right. I've had to > > take it 3 times because I don't use it very often and it easy to > > forget without the repetition but it's just something you have to do > > if you are doing your > job correctly. > > > > Simply my opinion (but I think it's right!) > > > > Cliff Whitfield, SET > > President > > Fire Design, Inc. > > Ph: 719-488-3479 > > > > > > > > [email protected] > > www.fire-design.com > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > [email protected] > > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2014 7:27 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: seismic bracing calcs > > > > Seismic design category C, contractor submittal package, > > > > Do you provide a calc sheet for EQ bracing or just locate per NFPA > > 13 and send typical catalog data sheets? > > > > FM Global project, BTW. > > > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > > Fire Protection Group Lead > > CH2MHILL > > Lockwood Greene > > 1500 International Drive > > Spartanburg, SC 29303 > > Direct - 864.599.4102 > > Fax - 864.599.8439 > > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > > [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > kl > > er.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin > > kl > > er.org > > > > > > -- > 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, WFSC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, > inventor and engineer (1876-1958) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org > -- 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, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
