And there's the other third of the problem. On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Steve Leyton <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it's prudent for the AHJ to request affirmation from the project > structural engineer that the proposed means of hanging and seismically > bracing fire sprinkler piping is within the design tolerances that were > calculated for the project. In fact, in seminar environments, I encourage > AHJ's that if they have any doubts about whether applied loads can be borne > by building structure, that they should draw the SEOR into the mix prior to > approving the sprinkler design. That said, it doesn't mean that the > sprinkler contractor becomes the structural engineer or has to do anything > more than provide the dead vertical and dynamic horizontal load values for > the hangers and bracing to the engineer, who should be able to efficiently > tell any interested party whether there is an issue or not. > > Same with the ceilings - I think it's a fair question. It's also not a > question that I'm going to spend even three seconds considering the answer > to. Pick up phone, call architect (or GC if I'm a sub making a deferred > submittal) and say, "Hello there. I need a written statement from the > designer or design/build installer of the ceiling system that it conforms to > X, Y and Z." NFPA 13 also calls out that ceilings used to support flexible > tube drops must meet certain threshold criteria and I'm sure as heck not > doing that certification either, but it's a valid request from the AHJ. > > When will sprinkler people stop taking ownership of stuff that isn't ours to > contend with? > > Steve Leyton > Protection Design & Consulting > San Diego, CA > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 11:34 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: ASCE 7-05 > > Got a little topic drift here...While I was/am in contracting for 6 years I > spent the previous 9 as an AHJ. So I sometimes am a little sympathetic to > their side. As AHJ I only had control over the one tiny issue of fire > sprinklers. The only thing I knew about the building was what the sprinkler > contractor supplied. There is something in the laundry list in 13 that > requires the SC to provide all information necessary to make conditions > clear. > > Looking back at the time I would have done exactly what George's AHJ did. > (Today I'd do it a very little but different.) Just like I'd write the > sprinkler is obstructed by a light or duct or whatever. I probably even > wrote to the effect move the sprinkler. Contractors would complain why I > didn't tell the electrician to move the light. I sympathized but I had no > authority over the electrician. Nor did I have any idea what led to the > conflict. I also had no idea who these other trades were. In the > conversation all I could do was tell them I didn't care which solution, move > light or sprinkler, that they had to take it up with the contractual chain > of authority. I'd supported them the best I could with the GC or Arch or > Owner. Especially if it was a change to the EE or ME package thus was a > legitimate CO for someone. But if there were no changes or design build > they were kinda on their own. Lack of coordination on DB wasn't something > I'd stick my nose in then or now. > > Here's something for you AHJ's out there. Now today if I went back to AHJ > I'd still call the issue to the permit seeking sprinkler contractor BUT I'd > change the language a bit. I'd write the light, move the sprinkler or > light. On the structural issues I'd write to the sprinkler contractor to > the effect it was their responsibility to pass along the issue to the > GC...this was beyond the SC's scope and needs to be addressed by the > structural PE. If he forgot to consider 10" main it wasn't the SC's problem > other than coordinating the paper trail to me the AHJ. > > On the ceiling issue George has, I'd write the SC to have the GC supply the > require info. But there would still be no permit until the issue was > resolved. I would probably require GC on the permit application and send > the GC the same letter. > > In the end we are probably talking more semantics than anything else. > Sending the letter written the right way and identifying the responsible > party is an area the AHJ's can help the cause greatly. Sadly, though I > don't think may would follow the lead. > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 9:40 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05 > > Yes and no Chris. For calcs we supply point loads and we should design > to the point load strength of the structure so that hangers may need > to be very close together relative to maximum. In seismic these truss > systems typically require a brace on every third member. I can do this > if I'm supplied with the numbers. The problem I'm railing against, and > I may be at an extreme of my sensibility pendulum, is the AHJs > requiring us to supply this info at a cost to us. We're a couple of > sheets in a larger package and often the fire plan reviewer, > particularly when a hired gun, only has our sheets and then demands > that we provide info that may or may not be in the full submittal but > is beyond our scope. Next you go to the GC (we're always too late in > the game for my taste) and ask for info to comply with the AHJ and the > GC tells us we have to do it. So pretty soon everybody, including the > owner because it's obviously in his interest to not have to pay for > it, is saying the requirement that the building hold up the pipe is in > our book so our problem, and so the owner reaps a windfall profit on > our backs. Same concept applies to the ceiling. Now some well placed > verbiage in the contract specifically omitting the structural guys > stuff from our scope is the best plan. > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Chris Cahill <[email protected]> > wrote: >> I agree with much of what you say Ron. But the AHJ has a point and an "if" >> on the plan IMHO doesn't make it approvable. No offense to George but the >> plan ain't done if he doesn't know how the ceiling is being seismically >> treated. The AHJ is just asking for which solution is being supplied. If >> return bends there could be hydraulic concerns over short drops and large >> plates. >> >> Is this really different than indentifying the structural elements on the >> sprinkler plan? We certainly don't design the structure but we certainly >> relay the information so the AHJ can agree we complied with spacing, >> deflector height and obstructions. And occasionally it's justified to >> supply calculations showing the building will hold the sprinkler pipe. We >> don't do the calc's but they belong in our sprinkler package in these > cases. >> >> Copy and paste the answers from the arch or ceiling guy, modify your plan > as >> necessary and you are done. >> >> Chris Cahill >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron > Greenman >> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 8:55 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: ASCE 7-05 >> >> George, >> >> Providing the information about the ceiling IS outside of your scope. >> You only have to comply with the rules dependent on the ceiling >> arrangement. Submittal drawings need only carry a note that to the >> effect that if the ceiling is not seismically qualified then you will >> comply with one of the two methods allowed per 13. Or just put the big >> plate option on then tell the architect that that is what you intend >> to do because you don't know about the seismic qualities of the >> ceiling. I'll bet it takes no more than a couple of hours to get the >> info of what the CEILING GUY intends to do and I'll bet he will intend >> to brace the grid. This getting us to do all this leg work like making >> sure the building will hold up the pipes is one of my pet peeves. >> HELLO!!!! It's not my building. I don't have to put the pipes in, the >> owner does. He just hired me to do it 'cause he can't/he's lazy/he's >> got other stuff to do/etc. The pipes weigh what they weigh. I'll tell >> him how much and I'll even tell him what the point loads will be and >> find what I consider the best points of attachment to be. That's my >> job. Whether the building is strong enough to deal with those forces >> is his and his BUILDING DESIGNER's problem. I'm happy to coordinate >> but it's HIS building. Same applies to the ceiling. I have enough of a >> problem hitting center tile per the plans and then getting on site to >> find that the layout has been turned 90 degrees or started from the >> opposite end than was on that plan. As to what's meant by head >> extension I've always read that to mean "drop" and not a "head >> extender" per se. >> >> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:57 PM, George Medina Jr <[email protected]> > wrote: >>> >>> I have a plan checker requiring me to call out the required T-bar ceiling >> grid construction in accordance with ASCE- 7-05 (Sec. 13.5.6.2.2 - > 13.6.8.4) >> I do not have sections 13.3.1. & 13.3.2 which are referenced in the >> aforementioned sections. Does anyone have code sections 13.3.1 & 13.3.2? > The >> fire sprinkler plan checker had sent me copies from there FPE who happens > to >> be on vacation for 2 weeks. >>> I believe the t-bar ceiling call out is outside my scope of work, but > upon >> further reading There is a requirement for Fire Sprinkle Piping for being > in >> Seismic Zone 4. Section 13.5.6.2.2 (e.) >>> States: >>> "Except where rigid braces are used to limit lateral deflections, >> sprinkler heads and other penetrations shall have a 2" oversize ring, >> sleeve, or adapter through the ceiling tile to allow for free movement of > at >> least 1 in. in all horizontal directions. Alternatively, a swing joint > that >> can accommodate 1 in. of ceiling movement in all horizontal directions is >> permitted to be provided at the top of the sprinkler head extension" Does >> head extension imply drop? >>> >>> How would I determine the Design Strength of Sections 13.6.8.3 - 3 >> (a.),(b.) & (c.)? >>> >>> I am not Familiar with these code sections, and if there is anyone with >> experience in it, your guidance would greatly be appreciated. >>> >>> George Medina Jr. >>> >>> = >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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) >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Ron Greenman >> Instructor >> Fire Protection Engineering >> Bates Technical College >> Tacoma, WA >> >> Member: >> AFT WA 4184/AFL-CIO, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC >> _______________________________________________ >> 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) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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) >> > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering > Bates Technical College > Tacoma, WA > > Member: > AFT WA 4184/AFL-CIO, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC > _______________________________________________ > 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) > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 5302 (20100722) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature > database 5302 (20100722) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. > > http://www.eset.com > > _______________________________________________ > 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) >
-- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: AFT WA 4184/AFL-CIO, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC _______________________________________________ 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)
