This is a design-build project: translation - no engineering. The
builder sold the client a shell and hired subs to fill it in. My
role, right now, is as sprinkler system designer. However, that is
expanding and will probably at least cover engineering for the
storage area, once they figure out the storage arrangement. I am not
well enough versed in chemical processes to make any kind of valid
analysis, so they will have to get someone mightier than I to develop
criteria for the production area.
There is no A/E firm. There is a metal building contractor and
supplier with some in-house design people who can shape a building.
That is it. The contractor involved does most of the work for this
company and the builder just calls him with the latest project. If
things look weird, I get called. (Roland, does this flash back to our
discussion on design/build?)
At 01:40 PM 3/6/2008, you wrote:
Todd,
You need an engineer. You are an engineer. Are you being paid to be THE
engineer or are you being paid to lay-out a sprinkler system? If the latter
you should lay-out to the engineer's design. Oops! Maybe the owner needs to
hire one. Why do contractors keep sticking their necks out and doing
engineering for the owner and architect for no pay? Why do contractors keep
thinking that part of design (see bad word), layout/build contracts include
engineering? Just 'cause you are an engineer doesn't mean you have to wear
that hat for free. My son is a notary but he doesn't have to notarize
something just because it's something that needs notarizing. He still has to
ensure that all the rules are followed and he won't do that, much less pull
out the stamp, until he sees the money.
On 3/6/08, Todd Williams - FPDC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm glad to see others seem to be thinking along the same lines. This
> is the second design-build chemical facility project this year with
> no engineering or insurance company input and no company policies on
> fire protection other than 'code says we need sprinklers'.
>
> Let me pose this: if there is no such thing as an 'ordinary chemical
> plant' and they all require specific engineering analysis per NFPA
> 30, is NFPA doing a disservice by including this in 13? Anybody can
> read that statement and decide that a facility is an ordinary
> chemical plant and protect it as OH2 when it should be analyzed and
> could be a lot higher. Don't mean to dis the sprinkler bible, but
> this type of statement could have some unintended consequences.
>
>
>
> At 12:07 PM 3/6/2008, you wrote:
> >I have never done a chemical processing facility that fell under NFPA 13
> >and never an OH occupancy. Usually they fall under NFPA 30 or a more
> >stringent and specific FM criteria. Each plant requires a detailed
> >hazards analysis of the process, equipment types and purpose, MSDS info
> >as well as building construction among other issues to determine the
> >proper protection approach.
> >
> >The other issue is that there are new technologies being born every day.
> >Each new product being used or produced doesn't always have a page of
> >it's own in the code. So it takes some homework and detailed analysis
> >when it comes to determining fire protection criteria for these kinds of
> >facilities.
> >
> >"Ya gotta love it!"
> >
> >
> >Craig L. Prahl, CET
> >Fire Protection Group
> >Mechanical Department
> >CH2MHILL
> >Lockwood Greene
> >1500 International Drive
> >PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491
> >Direct - 864.599.4102
> >Fax - 864.599.8439
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >http://www.ch2m.com
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd
> >Williams - FPDC
> >Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 11:26 AM
> >To: [email protected]
> >Subject: Ordinary chemical plants?
> >
> >In NFPA 13, under the section describing OH2 occupancies, they mention
> >"Chemical plants - ordinary". What is an ordinary chemical plant?
> >
> >Todd G. Williams, PE
> >Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> >Stonington, Connecticut
> >www.fpdc.com
> >860.535.2080
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> >
> >To Unsubscribe, send an email
> >to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
> >_______________________________________________
> >Sprinklerforum mailing list
> >[email protected]
> >http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
> >
> >To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>
> Todd G. Williams, PE
> Fire Protection Design/Consulting
> Stonington, Connecticut
> www.fpdc.com
> 860.535.2080
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>
--
Ron Greenman
at home....
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
www.fpdc.com
860.535.2080
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
