Sounds like argumentum ad populum to me. On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maybe in the perfect world but in reality it won't happen that way. I've > seen too many value engineered projects where one of the first things to go > is the bldg. structure. Usually from an engineered bldg to a pre-engineered > spaghetti noodle design that will barely hold itself up and sure isn't > taking into consideration all the utility loading. And forget about EQ > bracing, that would cause someone to have a stroke. Fortunately none of > these super-econo model designs required bracing. > > In today's economy everything is up for grabs, nothing is exempt. > > > 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 Ben Young > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 5:15 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Hangers > > I would still consider that unsavory, because its based on greed. > Structural steel is one thing that should never be be value engineered. > Using barjoists that will fold like a house of cards when someone hangs a > plant from them isn't very smart in my opinion, and it cheapens the long > term sustainability of construction. You don't often see issues with > support when working on older buildings because they actually built them to > last. I feel very sorry for anyone that has to retrofit a Target store in > the next 30-40 years. > > The simple solution is to stop trying to save a couple bucks by skimping on > structural steel, or get a fire protection engineer involved much earlier in > the process of the building design. > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 4:54 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Unsavory as a substitute for greed and crook is interesting. Let's > > not forget ignorance or, more importantly, the ignorance of ignorance. > > Everyone is correct in that the A/E is one of the worst offenders in > > this case as they usually only supply specific technical > > specifications without any really legal language as to who is > > responsible for all of the spec sections and who coordinates them. > > Usually, some language may be inferred as the General Contractor is > > responsible. While this is true, much gnashing of teeth occurs before > corrections are made. > > > > Case in point is the hanging of large mains on bar joists that are not > > capable of supporting the actual weight of the water filled pipe, much > > less the added 250 #. This is where reinforcement bracing has to be > > added to the bar joists to support the large pipe. This is more > > likely to happen in a spec warehouse project, but could certainly > > occur in an old building that was never meant to support the added > > live load that a large sprinkler system presents. Overall, the entire > > sprinkler system could be viewed as a uniform load, however large > > mains supported at 12 or 15 foot centers can present quite a point load > at their support points. > > > > So, who is responsible for this situation? Who examines the sprinkler > > contractor's shop drawings and determines the loads? Who determines > > that the supports provided by the sprinkler contractor will be adequate > for the > > sprinkler pipe alone? What happens if the sprinkler system load is > added > > to the mechanical chilled water and hot water line load supported by > > the same structural elements? It would seem that the A/E would have > > some responsibility in this, but he is already out of the picture by > > the time the sprinkler shop drawings are done. > > > > Thank You > > > > Rahe Loftin, P.E. > > Region 7 - GSA > > Office - 817-978-7299 > > Fax - 817-978-8644 > > Cell - 817-371-3102 > > > > > > > > > > > > Ron Greenman > > <rongreen...@gmai > To > > l.com> [email protected] > > Sent by: cc > > sprinklerforum-bo > > un...@firesprinkl > Subject > > er.org Re: Hangers > > > > > > 11/16/2009 10:10 > > AM > > > > > > Please respond to > > sprinklerfo...@fi > > resprinkler.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unsavory. Nice. That's the kind of word I love to use in lieu of greed > > and crook and the like. Unsavory. > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:53 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Point being, read the contract and the specs very carefully. There > > > is > > much ignorance in the AE realm on what the sprinkler contractor is to > > do. Sometimes it's not all ignorance but just some unsavory persons > > looking for a stooge on which to hang the undesirable or forgotten work. > > > > > > > > > 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 Ron > > Greenman > > > Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 10:48 AM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Hangers > > > > > > Be careful though because out this way many of the lesser savvy AHJs > > > are > > interpreting this to mean that the sprinkler contractor is responsible > > for proving the building will support the system and so the GCs are > > learning to specify that in their contracts knowing they'll get > > backing. Some (both GCs and AHJs) are even trying to require the > > sprinkler contractor to upgrade the structure if necessary. I have > > even seen one contract that was trying to pin the soils engineering on > > the sprinkler guy by requiring he verify that the dirt work, > > foundations and structure were adequate. Just last week a friend was > > contractually obligated for $16,000.00 worth of structural upgrades > > even though not a part of the contract because the AHJ wouldn't > > release the sprinkler permit until structural calcs were submitted with > the plans. > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:13 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I believe the general consensus the last time this was asked was > > >> that > > the requirement you quoted pertained to the hanger not the structure > > as specifying building requirements would be beyond the scope of NFPA 13. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> 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 Greg > > >> Lindholm > > >> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 10:09 AM > > >> To: SprinklerFORUM > > >> Subject: Hangers > > >> > > >> It's Monday and the brain doesn't seem to be working right. > > >> > > >> Section 9.1.1.2 (2002) says that the the hangers shall be designed > > >> to > > support the water filled pipe plus 250#. Does the structure itself > > need to support that much, or just the hanger assembly itself. > > >> > > >> Gregory Lindholm > > >> Metro Fire Protection, Inc. > > >> 8693 SE 34th Ave. > > >> Owatonna, MN 55060 > > >> 507-451-9694 > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > >> > > >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: > > >> [email protected] > > >> > > >> To Unsubscribe, send an email > > >> to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > <to%3ASprinklerforum-req > > >> [email protected]> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject > > >> field) _______________________________________________ > > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > >> [email protected] > > >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > >> > > >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: > > >> [email protected] > > >> > > >> To Unsubscribe, send an email > > >> to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > <to%3ASprinklerforum-req > > >> [email protected]> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject > > >> field) > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Ron Greenman > > > Instructor > > > Fire Protection Engineering > > > Bates Technical College > > > Tacoma, WA > > > > > > Member: > > > SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, WSAFM > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: > > > [email protected] > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > <to%3ASprinklerforum-reques > > [email protected]> > > > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: > > > [email protected] > > > > > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > <to%3ASprinklerforum-reques > > [email protected]> > > > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ron Greenman > > Instructor > > Fire Protection Engineering > > Bates Technical College > > Tacoma, WA > > > > Member: > > SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, WSAFM > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > <to%3ASprinklerforum-reques > > [email protected]> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > <to%3ASprinklerforum-reques > > [email protected]> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
