Here is one that is number one on my list. The designer was told the existing fire pump had a rated head of 180 feet. Instead of converting that head to 78 psi, he inverted the conversion and thought the pump was 415 psi. Calculations were done, system designed, stamped by an "engineer", approved by the authorities and installed by the sprinkler contractor. Interestingly, though the pipe sizing was based on a 415 psi pump, heads rated for high pressure were not installed. Ten years after it was installed, the building was sold and the insurance guy started to wonder why the warehouse addition had small piping compared to the adjacent warehouse that was older. That was when the stuff hit the fan.
Tony -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: December 13, 2012 9:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: advice Regardless of what the status of the design or knowledge and background of the designer is, the comment is inappropriate. Believe me, I've seen some crap, but personal attacks do nothing but create animosity and make the problem even more difficult to resolve. Yes the problems needs to be detailed and addressed, but that type of behavior needs to be called out right away. At 11:39 AM 12/13/2012, you wrote: >Was that one of my review comments? LOL > >Seriously, I've seen some seriously miserable excuses for design documents that I have no idea how the installers could have even used them for anything other than to line the bottom of their gang boxes. But hey, there are times when I've gotten the impression that the submitting contractor thinks we're just some dumb group of engineers whose reviewers wouldn't know a standpipe from a stove pipe, right? Just stamp approved on the drawings and we're all good to go. NOT! > >Drafting Standards and quality drawing production is a lost art. > > >So my response to a comment like this if I was the recipient would to be to ask for specifics. What lead the reviewer to this response? > >He may be 100% spot on or HE might not have a clue how to read the calcs, that's' always the flip side. Maybe he needs some education or an explanation. I'd call him and ask what specific issues he had and see if talking him through some of those would help him with the review. > > >Craig L. Prahl, CET >Fire Protection >CH2MHILL >Lockwood Greene >1500 International Drive >Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 >Direct - 864.599.4102 >Fax - 864.599.8439 >CH2MHILL Extension 74102 >[email protected] > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >ParsleyConsulting >Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 10:57 AM >To: SprinklerFORUM >Subject: advice > >I have to admit I'm completely at a loss for how to respond to a written review comment a friend of mine received yesterday. It read as follows: > >"The person that ran the hydraulic calculations has obviously not been trained to use the program and is not knowledgeable in sprinkler system design." > >As you might well imagine he's quite upset. Anyone have advice on how to proceed? >-- > >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
