Not to mention as builts.
Steve -------- Original message -------- From: Michael Hill <[email protected]> Date: 10/6/17 7:58 AM (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Calcs and tenant improvements As I am sure you are aware, many jurisdictions adopt/modify the standards and seem to apply them differently. Most jurisdictions we work in require substantial safety factors when calculating base building sprinkler installations. The reasons given for these are usually “to allow field changes” and to “account for future tenant revisions”. For instance, you would only be required to calculate the most demanding area of the highest typical floor in a multi-story office building. Any tenants on lower levels that matched the original pipe sizing and spacing would not require new hydraulic calculations. That has gone away for many jurisdictions, as they now require new calculations on all tenant improvements. On the flip side of this. I have been asked to calculate projects that I would have argued did not need them, as I was matching existing conditions that had already been proven by hydraulic calculations, only to find these areas to be more demanding. I do not mind having to do calculations on every project. We are however, finding it difficult to obtain water flow information in a timely manner from several local jurisdictions. Mike Hill From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew J Willis Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 10:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Calcs and tenant improvements It’s Friday so.., Where does it say in 13 that you do Not provided calcs? If I read 23.1.3 they are required no? R/ Matt Matthew J. Willis Project Manager Rapid Fire Protection Inc.<http://rapidfireinc.com/> 1530 Samco Road Rapid City, SD 57702 Office-605.348.2342 Direct Line-605.593.5063 Cell-605.391.2733 Fax:-605.348.0108 [cid:[email protected]] From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Hill Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 8:28 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Calcs and tenant improvements It is because of scenarios like these, the AHJ require calculations for everything. It makes the ill informed/trained do what they should have done originally. Mike Hill From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, October 06, 2017 10:22 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Calcs and tenant improvements This may not speak to your question in general terms, but has a third party planner viewer for a local fire department I have kicked two tenant improvements back and demanded couch recently. one of them entailed the Edition of 11 sprinklers in an area that already had 10, that was being remodeled into small counseling cubicles. The end result was 21 sprinklers in a space no larger than 1200 square feet. The submitter put a note on the plan saying that they were taking the exception of only counting sprinklers in separate fire areas, his badly flawed premise being that the non-rated walls forming the little rooms represented a fire area separation of sorts. The other was a retail tenant Improvement in an existing Ordinary Hazard shell building where outlets were spaced at 120 square feet and originally designed for K5.6 sprinklers. The TI utilized extended coverage at 20 x 20. The submitter's reasoning was it was like for like because the hazard didn't change and there were fewer sprinklers. Like everything else, we in the sprinkler community need to take ownership of what is still a low standard of care in our industry. On the AHJ side of the counter, we hope that common sense will prevail. Steve -------- Original message -------- From: Travis Mack <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: 10/6/17 6:39 AM (GMT-08:00) To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: Calcs and tenant improvements Interesting to see what others run into. As far as the PE seal, that is jurisdiction specific. We have PE on staff and seal in jurisdictions that require. This has just been something that has been popping up more and more. It was very rare in the past. We maybe calculated 1:100. Now I am seeing 3:5 requiring it for the jurisdictions I deal with. Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to MFP Design via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign Sent from my iPhone On Oct 6, 2017, at 6:31 AM, [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> wrote: It depends on the jurisdiction, but I do see it. More of the rule and not the exception. I don't see anything to the extreme you are talking about. I did have one recently where the existing sprinklers were installed on flex drops and we have to move 5 sprinklers one pad over. The engineer stated if we used flex drops (even the existing ones), the system had to calculated. However, if we removed the flex and installed hard pipe, no calcs we're required. Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-535-2080<tel:860-535-2080> (ofc) 860-553-3553<tel:860-553-3553> (fax) 860-608-4559<tel:860-608-4559> (cell) On Oct 6, 2017 at 9:15 AM, <Travis Mack<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: How many of you are being required to calculate systems when you do a tenant improvement? Just your run of the mill add/relocate. I am seeing it come up more and more. I am seeing it in situations where it is mostly relocates and no additions anywhere near the design areas. I have one now where the AHJ rejected for no calculations where the shell was OH2 and the new space is residential lofts. This particular AHJ wants us to show all piping on portions of the floor where no work is being done. They are also requiring us to submit plans for the two floors below our space that have no work being done. Is anyone else seeing stuff like this? Travis Mack, SET MFP Design, LLC "Follow" us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692 Send large files to MFP Design via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
