Unless there is a change in occupancy why would the design area be changed to 3,000 sf? That's a bit confusing. Did this go from let's say a light hazard occupancy to an Extra Hazard occupancy? Just because walls move doesn't mean the calculated design area increases. Maybe the Hyd. remote area moves, that's very possible.
If the contractor is just moving arm-overs to accommodate a new floor plan and the number of heads on branch lines isn't changing significantly (that's a judgment call), the design density is still the same, the actual design area is still the same (design area not just floor area) and the system hyd. remote area isn't changing then there may not need to be any recalculation. Again, we're not seeing the before and after plans here so we are limited in regards to making an absolute recommendation. If there is significant redesign then sure, provide a new calc. and the contractor should have given you the data to be able to verify the information back to the source data as was provided to him. Bracing, well based on that wording in the spec. that's just a sad and useless excuse for a spec. I agree with what someone else wrote, if given that kind of direction I'd just write that based on the lack of information in the design documents bracing requirements can not be determined and describe what was/is there before the new work began and throw it back at the EOR. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Specialist 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 å... .... Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 10:08 AM To: [email protected] Subject: review of sprinkler plans ends up with GC requesting the reviewer to provide additional plan sheet because contractor don´t want to On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 5:37 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Are the changes to the sprinklers going to vary from the original design? > What exactly is he doing by changing out heads? Need to be more specific. ************ yes, walls moved, and I believe the design area changed from 1,500 to 3,000, as this is a job on a military base whose last renovation occured in 1994. ************ > > > If the changes to the system are significant enough, is he providing a > new hydraulic calculation for the system? If he is then he should > have the water flow data, that is if the EOR did his job. ************* regarding a hydraulic calculation, yes I am asking for this. we have waterflow data... the question I was asking is whether the contractor should document the UG system of pipes, hydrants, etc. that disply the water supply to the building. This is something I feel should be on the plans. So I will do it, because the GC knows the AS contractor doesn't want to, and it will take a long tim. (The AS reluctance may be justified, depending upon whom you ask, the specs indicate some level of detail is required in documenting the source of water to the building, but I did not know the specs, when I asked the AS contractor to document this water supply information). ************* > As far as you asking for bracing, based on what? Is bracing required by the > building code or other applicable code? Was that requirement > established and defined in the contractor's scope of work as attached to his > contract? > Just saying to provide bracing per NFPA 13 for the sake of providing > bracing with no direction or information is of little value. What are > the seismic characteristics of the site? Was that given to him? If > he's going to brace then it needs to be completely compliant, not just > a brace here or there at someone's whim. ************ i think the EoR is the one that wrote the specifications. I received them...not wrote them. these specs are vague...from previous thread the specs say to "describe seismic bracing, restraint and protection features for non-structural building systems and installed components." for new construction on another project at same site this sub and I worked together we put EQ bracing up on that project. that was a bit like pulling teeth getting the calcs complete. for this renovation, i stand corrected and back down, I change my mind. no EQ bracing...the pipe can fall down. Earthquakes happen in central Cally. **************** > > > > > Sounds like a big truckload of info needs to be coming from the EOR first. > As the reviewer you should not be doing the engineering on the job, > and if the contractor is slow in responding according to the GC, > that's not your problem. NFPA 13 doesn't specifically define what's part of a scope of work or not, the contract documents do. So you can't enforce NFPA 13 as his contract duty. Obviously he is obligated to install to meet NFPA 13 requirements, but 13 doesn't define the limits of work. If the EOR left vital information off his construction documents, then it's HIS responsibility to learn how to execute a protect correctly and provide the necessary information to the contractor so ultimately you have what you need to do a thorough review. The issue is, are you asking to do things that were not part of his contract? ************** that's the issue, that is why I asked for advice. thanks for helping scot deal excelsior fire _______________________________________________ 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)
