And I'll be seeing YOU next year! On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:33 PM, George Church <[email protected]> wrote: > Nice. And todd, you DO have a professional responsibility to advise- as in > "its legal but it won't work." > And Ron, the exception for your upsizing rule is ok is ez- > In a dry system, upsizing will increase capacity, and generally that'll slow > trip time and transit time alike; Confirm with trip test or FDT calc. > > The ability to give a hard time to a friend from Forum and Convention a day > after he saves you $1,000-PRICELESS. > > George Church' > Rowe Sprinkler > [email protected] > 570-837-7647 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 7:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Hydraulic Calcs > > But again that wasn't the issue: Is replacing a system, like for like, any > different than replacing a head with a different head with the same K as the > old one (another twist)? This started with a question about calcing a system > that was having some old main replaced. If I were to read into this I'd say > the question is does it matter because it's big pipe or that it's main? If > George's scenario holds and I "change" a pipe to a bigger size do I need to > calc it? If I replace a pipe with the same size do I need to then? And if I > change it to a smaller size, what then? I think what one needs to get out of > one's head is that size matters regarding replace. If all things remain > unchanged then replacing like for like is replacement, not change. If any > condition has changed (storage where no storage existed before) then anything > done may be change.I've had an AHJ make me calc both identical systems in a > single building off the same manifold, wherein each was a mirror of the other > wi > th each covering half of the building. His argument was that I didn't > understand calcs, it needed to be done because the design areas were at > separate ends of the building. I didn't argue since the time it took to Xerox > the single calc and mark one set system 1 and the other system 2 was worth > the laugh over this guy "understanding ho calcs work." > > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 4:04 PM, Todd Williams <[email protected]> wrote: >> George, >> >> Replacing a 3" main because of MIC is very different than replacing an >> entire system. On the situation you described, I agree that it is a >> maintenance issue and analysis and hydraulics are not necessary. My >> rhetorical question is at what point does maintenance end and a new >> system begin? >> >> Being a cynical PE, I don't always accept that what was done before is >> necessarily correct. In my history of doing 3rd party review, >> approximately >> 2/3 of the drawings have been rejected the first time around due to >> technical errors. That and some of the things that I have seen AHJs >> miss, make me take a second look at everything. When I see a main >> replacement come across my desk I try to take a look and see if what >> we have for a design appears to be OK. If I have to prepare drawings >> to submit for a main replacement, because the contractor cannot get a >> permit without a stamped drawing, I want to be covered. I will >> typically push for a letter from the AHJ stating that he accepts the >> present installation and there is no need for analysis. Or if there is >> an issue, sometimes I will flash my PE plumage and say we may have a >> problem and see where it goes. It's something I see as my professional >> responsibility but also a little bit of CYA. I want to have some basis >> for my actions in case I'm dragged into court if something happens. >> >> As you say, if you want credibility, you need to earn it. >> >> >> At 06:05 PM 1/12/2011, you wrote: >>> >>> This is pretty basic, and certainly there are exceptions for every rule. >>> Existing system, we're to assume it was designed, installed and >>> tested in accordance with applicable codes/laws at that time, pipe schedule. >>> No change in occupancy, same owner doing same processes. >>> You're replacing a 3" main because of MIC. >>> You're going to somehow find a requirement to provide calcs for the >>> MRA, using 3/4" end lines? >>> Could be adding 30% to the MRA for that sloped roof that didn't >>> impact the pipe schedule? >>> So your calcs show it massively undersized. >>> You go to the owner and point out he needs to replace the existing 4" >>> lead-in with 8", new city tap and pit, new 6" riser to replace the 4" >>> that is functional and meets code cause the new requirements aren't >>> retroactive. >>> He looks at the $85,000 you want to add to replacing a couple lengths >>> of >>> pipe- or a 600' run- to get rid of some drippage. >>> Think he's opening up his checkbook to give you a deposit? >>> Or is he kicking your butt out the door for trying to sell him >>> something he's NOT required to do? >>> If you want credibility, you need to earn it. You could tell em its >>> prudent, but if he's not getting sky-high insurance quotes or the AHJ >>> isn't padlocking his door, then I doubt he'll be doing anything but >>> replacing the 3". And likely it will be someone other than you doing the >>> work. >>> >>> George Church' >>> Rowe Sprinkler >>> [email protected] >>> 570-837-7647 >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [email protected] >>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd >>> Williams >>> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 2:31 PM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: RE: Hydraulic Calcs >>> >>> If a system is installed that is an exact duplicate of an existing >>> system, which it is to replace, is that considered a new system under >>> the Code or a "repair" of a system under 25? Where is the cut-off >>> between the two? How would any of the AHJ's out there address this? >>> >>> Now George, supposed your building has 12ft storage of expanded >>> plastics or flammable liquid storage? Most likely the pipe schedule >>> system is not going to be able to protect those occupancies. Would >>> you swap the system old for new as it was installed? How would the >>> attorney for the plaintiff react to that? >>> >>> I didn't even bring up the issues about 3/4", 3-1/2" and 5" pipe. >>> >>> >>> >>> At 12:33 PM 1/12/2011, you wrote: >>> >So you run new UG into a building that was legally pipe schedule >>> >because the calc (that wasn't required under the valid but old >>> >design >>> >criteria) doesn't work? It doesn't have to, its designed to the >>> >applicable code at installation. >>> > >>> >George Church' >>> >Rowe Sprinkler >>> >[email protected] >>> >570-837-7647 >>> > >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: [email protected] >>> >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd >>> >Williams >>> >Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2011 12:20 PM >>> >To: [email protected] >>> >Subject: Re: Hydraulic Calcs >>> > >>> >Ok, so in Doug's situation, it constitutes a new installation and >>> >not repair work (based on your first statement) and it is based on a >>> >prior design. However, as a new installation wouldn't the design >>> >need to meet current Codes irregardless of when the design was done >>> >and probably require hydraulic calculations? >>> > >>> >>> Todd G. Williams, PE >>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>> Stonington, CT >>> 860.535.2080 >>> www.fpdc.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) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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) >> >> Todd G. Williams, PE >> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >> Stonington, CT >> 860.535.2080 >> www.fpdc.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 Technology > Bates Technical College > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > [email protected] > > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > 253.680.7346 > 253.576.9700 (cell) > > Member: > AFSA, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, NFSA, AFAA, ASEE, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, > essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > _______________________________________________ > 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 Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: AFSA, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, NFSA, AFAA, ASEE, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ 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)
