Tom, Don't know about licensing in your state but in Washington we license the crap out of everybody except the permit runner and the plans reviewer. Wet stamps required by certified people on every sheet and a review by the dog catcher or last week's tailboard rider. Of course we have oodles of highly competent reviewers and I make no disparaging remarks against them but there's some who have trouble distinguishing Shineola from the other stuff (a reference for the aged amongst you) or, to get back to an earlier thread from this week, a hired gun charging by the word. There are model standards and certifications for plan reviewers published by IFSTA and in NFPA 1031 that some jurisdictions adhere to but that's on a case by case basis as far as I know. The Air Force follows the 1031 model and has both a principle and alternate on the committee as does AFSA (that would be me) and NFSA (my friend Dominick Kass) so we're trying to promote the concept. Most jurisdictions that do require or encourage certification for their plan reviewers tend towards the IFSTA standard. Both models have their particular advantages.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Tom Duross <[email protected]> wrote: > Ron- > > I use Elite's Fire and AutoCAD now. > The reports are so easy to review it's almost child's play I think. > I even input each segment along a bulk main, just to make it easier. > Node 1 is always inflow plus I include a nameplate on the drawings, thick > dashed lines and shading around the MRA. > The architecture is grayscale, pipe and heads in red, dimensions in green > and nomenclature in blue. Always 1/4 scale. Always a full section showing > risers and horizontal pipe and heads, always a nice site plan showing the > flowed hydrants and inflow, and lots of nice details I've spent many a > Saturday drawing by hand. > Been doing it this way since Release 9 and retired the pencil plotter (which > I still have) for pens. > I'm beginning to think he's someone's brother-in-law (no pun G) or a > friend's friend. > Tom > > Is there licensing for plan reviewers? :-) > Hey- Anybody need a pencil plotter? Still got the bill of sale (1992) and > box and lot's of supplies! > > Tom, > > We have a guy out here that's the hired gun for a growing (maybe not > so much so in the past few months) county that's a lot like this. We > also have a guy that's retired from another of the major counties that > has left a legacy of "make up rules on the fly" so that detached > garages on SFD properties have to be sprinklered to 13D if he decides > that your cars are valuable (true story and he was able to give me > written design direction when I said the standards gave no guidance so > that he is the EOR) or that SFD 13D attics have to have dry uprights > and it's OK to be well below the roof decking if a four footer isn't > long enough. Oh, and to support these angled steel pieces stressing > the plastic below you can support them with baling wire. OK, now that > I've ranted about west coast whackos I'll agree totally with > everything Ken said including not being able to be definitive without > seeing the drawings. But, that said, your description sounds OK. Do > you use a calc program? Sometimes these types get confused as to where > certain data points are on the calc sheet in relation to the > plan,particularly if they're looking for hose stream somewhere on the > downstream side of the system tap. Finally, and do know I'm not trying > to make any claim to superiority, everybody in this little club knows > I put my foot in my mouth more often than not, but if it helps to > name drop I have lots of letters attached to mine and am deemed > competent enough by the State of Washington, Board of Community and > Technical Colleges to be certified to teach this stuff at the post > secondary level. > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Tom Duross <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks for the vote of confidence, I was somewhat taken back when I got > home >> and opened this package. >> I've worked in plenty of small towns where they don't have trained plan >> reviewers. >> I've even had AHJ's confess they don't understand and asked if I can walk >> them through it. >> I once spent 2 hours with a Deputy on a lodging house retrofit and we > became >> best buddies, did his first barrel test, patted each other on the back >> afterwards. >> I don't know if it was because the Owner and I were calling in for status >> one a week after waiting 6 weeks for permit or what. >> I plan to drive out and see the Chief and go over these with him > personally >> and just ask him who did the review. >> I'm sure it wasn't the State, they have some rally sharp guys and also the >> resources of WPI in Worcester. >> I might ask for a re-review with them as I'm holding up a job in a bad >> economy and effecting many more people than myself. >> Not to mention I'm now LAST on the job, I have no coordination from other >> trades and have to work around everything. >> I almost started writing a reply last night but glad I didn't now. ;-) >> We change codes tomorrow, all current editions but at least the building >> permit was issued last November. Whew! >> Tom >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]]on Behalf Of Parsley >> Consulting >> Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 10:20 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Hydraulics >> >> >> Tom, >> >> At first glance my thought is that the reviewer has some sort of mental >> problem. I'm certainly not the authority on how to conduct yourself in >> a business environment, however in the past 20 years I've performed >> close to 5,000 plan reviews and never have I even dreamed of making such >> an insulting remark on a set of comments. Whoever it is has behaved in >> an unprofessional manner, and such behavior has no place in that >> position. Of course, I've said a number of things like that while doing >> reviews just to get that thought out of my system, but I'd never dream >> of making my official review comments take on a personal nature. >> >> As to the accuracy of his remarks, I can only say that what you've >> described as your process sounds accurate to me, particularly if you've >> accounted for all the fittings where the water is making a change in >> flow direction. I don't understand his comment regarding where certain >> fittings have to be placed in various segments, perhaps because I don't >> have a set of plans to see what he's talking about. It does seem to me >> as though this is very heavy handed, almost as though something was >> under his skin before he sat down to look at your drawings and calcs. >> >> The one comment you've included which bothers me to the point where I >> think you have to raise a serious protest about it is the remark >> regarding the hose stream. It would seem that his remarks are ignorant >> of the process involved in adding hose demand to calculations, as noted >> in NFPA-13, sections 11.1.5.4 and 11.1.5.5(1-3). I can't even wrap my >> thoughts around why you'd have to take into account an inside hose >> demand when there are no inside hose valves. >> >> As for his comment regarding the demand from all your flowing sprinklers >> having to be based on the most demanding protection area there are no >> words which are vulgar enough to describe how far from reality this is. >> >From what you've described it sounds as though you're flowing the proper >> water for each coverage area for each sprinkler. Based on what you've >> described you're using residential sprinklers, and it sounds to me as >> though you've followed the two methods for establishing demand shown in >> 11.3.1.2 (1 and 2). I agree that you'll certainly have balancing in the >> calculations which will push up the flow from the lesser demanding >> sprinklers, but there's nothing in any text I've read which makes the >> claim he's nailing you with. >> >> Quite frankly, Tom, I'd insist on a meeting and go over this. The AHJ's >> I work with out here would never stand for me making remarks of that >> nature to anyone, and if I were to do so I'd be looking for another >> review client fairly quickly. >> >> Hey, maybe you could ask for the arrogant horse's butt to provide you >> with the name of the individual who taught HIM calculations to see if >> you could help him get his money back because that individual failed >> miserably at the task. >> >> Just some thoughts on a lovely March morning here in California. >> >> Keep us posted, huh? >> PARSLEY CONSULTING >> Ken Wagoner, SET >> 760.745.6181 voice >> 760.745.0537 fax >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> e-mail >> www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com> website >> >> >> >> >> Tom Duross wrote: >>> Preface: I'm a self taught hydraulic calculation dweeb and I always >> thought >>> I had a handle on the basics. >>> I also should take the hydraulics course on-line, not a plug but I'm sure >>> there's a lot I don't know. >>> >>> I got a written review of a set of plans and calcs I submitted by mail >>> today. >>> The AHJ's reviewer is anonymous and mails his reviews via the AHJ. First >>> for me and that's fine. >>> It's a 4 unit attached residential building. Full Basements, 775 SF/flr, >> 2 >>> floors with a small loft, attached garages. >>> Single 2" copper supply to a doghouse on the end, single zone system, >> steel >>> in the basement, cpvc upstairs. >>> Just a description of the system as it bears little to my questions, but >>> good for background. >>> >>> Comment #1 states my calculations are completely wrong. No citing of >>> section, just wrong. >>> He backs it up by saying that I include the downstream fitting in each >>> segment and I should be including the fitting at the start of the > segment. >>> I've just opened this up and I'm stunned. He goes further to ask where > my >>> training is in hydraulics and who (by name) taught me. Not nice in my >> book. >>> Let me explain how I do these and would you kind folks (and George too) >> tell >>> me if I'm off-base or not. >>> >>> My first segment is the underground. 2" copper, annealed, 1 piece from >> the >>> corporation stop on the main up into the doghouse. >>> I input 34' of type L, a gate valve and a 90 degree elbow with the tap as >>> the inflow. I know it's closer to 30' and the tubing is rolled and >> unrolled >>> so I really have a l o n g sweep but I usually go a little conservative. >>> He says I have to include the tee. I disagree in principle for now. My >>> next segment is the compression fitting (I actually braze a male adapter >> on) >>> to a 90 to a 2" horizontal backflow with ball valves (all copper because >>> it's still potable). I input a 1' of vertical, a 90, 1' of horizontal >>> copper, 2 ball valves and use 8 psi for the backflow non-linear loss >>> (guessing at the time but checked and adjusted for the basement demand of >>> 150 gpm) and put a 100 gpm (inside and/or outside) hose demand at the >> elbow. >>> He says the base elbow must be included but says the hose demand should > be >>> after the backflow. There are no hose valves, why? Anyway.. Fast > forward >>> to the last segments where again he says I'm incorrect, again. I show >> 7.5' >>> of 1" cpvc, and elbow and a head with 224 SF of area on it. He says I >> have >>> to include the branch tee feeding it but I included that in the segment >>> feeding that segment! Am I doing this all wrong? >>> >>> Another thing. I have a 4 head and a single head calc. (plus the > basement >>> and garage). I always used to do this when they had separate demands and >> I >>> just still do but that's not my question. I have 4 heads with different >>> areas being served by each. 2 are in bedrooms, 212 SF and 224 SF, one in >> a >>> hall with 90 SF and one in a walk-in closet with 56 SF. He says they all >>> have to "provide the same density at similar dimensions". WTF! I have > to >>> base all 4 heads (or all heads in the building for that matter) based > upon >>> my most demanding head which is the 224 SF bedroom that is 16x14 using >> 16x16 >>> flow and pressure requirements for all 4 heads. I've got almost a >> gallon/sf >>> in the closet and that's incorrect according to my reviewer. >>> >>> I'm not going to start a reply now as I just poured three fingers of >> single >>> malt but more because I want to re-read his comments and see what you >> folks >>> think. >>> I submitted these on Dec. 10th and I'm getting angry phone calls because >> we >>> haven't started yet and I get home and find this monkey-poop (ok, I'm >>> sipping now). >>> Have I been doing these wrong all this time? There's some more but I'm >>> starving. >>> Dazed and confused. >>> >>> Tom Duross >>> Go Red Sox! >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >>> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >>> >>> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >>> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > at home.... > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
