You could actually use standard sprinklers without them being over the top, but
you would have to saw the deflectors off a little ways up the arms. You could
have your axial verify your footprint pending Pressure's approval, and best of
all, K would equal 8. ;), brad
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 3:56
Ryan,
Could this be an application for a Victaulic Vortex system? I have seen them
advertised for this sort of industrial equipment protection application. It has
an FM listing (not sure about this specific case).
Matt Grisé PE*, LEED AP, NICET II
Sales Engineer
Alliance Fire Protection
130
8K spray nozzle is pretty odd device if you can't use standard spray
sprinklers. Tyco D3's only go to 7.2K. I would talk to the FM rep about an
alternative. I don't see why they would object If you can prove the impingement
at the required density with smaller K Factor nozzles. Especially if non
Did you look at Viking Model E? They have K=7.2, which is nominally close to
8.0. Looks like a wide range of angles too, and F.M. Approved!
-Original Message-
From: Hinson, Ryan [mailto:rhin...@burnsmcd.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:22 PM
To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ha
A project we are working on appears to require FM approved 8.0K spray nozzles
in a deluge system for protection of a boiler feed pump per FM Data Sheet 7-101
Steam Turbines and Electric Generators Section 2.4.2.C. This was mandated by a
FM rep. The only one we can find is the BETE Type N. Its
Dewayne,
That is precisely what is happening. This client builds the risers on site
and doesn't use a premade manifold.
Most of these jobs have at least 60 psi and some have over 90. For example,
the last job has a flow test of 100 psi (static) / 84 psi (residual) @ 2350
gpm
System demand is app
Tony,
Would flowing the inspectors test connection cause an excessive pressure
drop in the gauge when it is located after the gauge? I know that this
is not the case with a riser pack but on a normal riser it would be.
Dewayne
-Original Message-
From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:sprinklerf
I like it when they want to compare main drain residual pressure to the
calcs on a 13D system which was designed only to a static pressure.
You can pull the info from '13 and the handbook which explains the purpose
of the main drain test and also the explanation for the calc plate which
will have
Todd G Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, CT
www.fpdc.com
860-535-2080 (ofc)
> On Jul 10, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Tony Liddic
> wrote:
>
> There is a local AHJ that has recently started comparing the residual
> pressure when the Inspector's Test Valve is opened to the Resid
I would suggest running a quick calc showing the theoretical
flow/pressure from the inspector's test and the residual pressure at the
riser, and how that compares to the system demand. Or think of it this
way, the inspectors test flow (via a single 1/2 outlet) should always be
less than the syste
I had this problem about 6 months ago & sent the following to the fire
official. I have not heard from anyone so maybe it is resolved? I can email
the attachments or post them for you to download.
Bobby McCullough
According to NFPA 25, 2011, an annual Main Drain Test is to be compared to the
I have had that situation come up before. We could not convince the AHJ that
the main drain test was not supposed to be a flow test check.
The problem that we ran into was the fact that the gauge was on the downstream
side of the BFP and our base of riser calc tag showed the other side. We had t
There is a local AHJ that has recently started comparing the residual
pressure when the Inspector's Test Valve is opened to the Residual Pressure
Demand on the Calc Plate. If the pressure drops below system demand
pressure, they will not sign off on the final occupancy.
The main problem stems from
13 matches
Mail list logo
