I agree. There are many times when I've been instructed to "do it the same as the last building" when the last building was built in a different Code area, 20 years ago, and for another type of process.
My motto is "If it don't apply your idea won't fly". Education is the key and we're fighting an uphill battle. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: engineering decisions Oh, I agree Craig. I was simply referring to an instance when a certain performance was to be met that was only in the FM guides. For example, using 1.4 instead of 1.2 to elongate the design area. Or, as another example, a limitation on water velocity. Simply indicating that FM guidelines must be met and no reference to the particular FM document. Additionally, requiring that FM 2.8N be met without really knowing what you need. The certain things desired in these documents can be added to a specification without increasing its volume drastically. Thank You Rahe Loftin, P.E. Region 7 - GSA Office - 817-978-7299 Fax - 817-978-8644 Cell - 817-371-3102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] com To Sent by: [email protected] sprinklerforum-bo cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] er.org Subject RE: engineering decisions 04/24/2008 03:39 PM Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED] resprinkler.org It could get quite laborious to regurgitate all the FM data and specifications for an item when all you have to say is that "XYZ Valve must be an FM approved device" if you have been directed by an owner or underwriter to do so. The wordier the specification the less likely it will be met, keep it simple for everyone. It's only lazy when you didn't bother to ask if there really is a requirement for items to be FM approved and you throw the note in just to cover yourself because you really don't have a clue. 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 4:19 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: engineering decisions In my opinion, it is OK to required an FM approved device as these approvals are published and many devices and items are noted as being FM approved. However, if we want to require systems or special issues that are in the FM guidelines, it would be best to simply provide the specific language in the specifications instead of indicating that it must meet FM requirements. To simply reference any and all published guides and standards amounts to lazy engineering. Thank You Rahe Loftin, P.E. Region 7 - GSA Office - 817-978-7299 Fax - 817-978-8644 Cell - 817-371-3102 _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
