Don't you love when you have to choose a system and a protection scheme based on something the AHJ thinks he remembers?
We just had a situation that due to a water company's inability to understand the demands of sprinkle systems, we're limited to reducing the demand on their system to a residual of 50 PSI- not for anyone on a nearby hilltop, but because they didn't feel comfortable with anything less. Since we had something like 110 static, 75 @ 500, but wanted to get a fire pump in due to a large expansion planned. So we'd have had a pressure reducing valve going into the fire pump to knock the high static down, and a low suction control valve on the discharge side of the pump. Sort of opposite the KISS principle I try to follow.....so they're not getting a fire pump on this iteration. glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 8:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Minimum safety factor He has yet to respond to me when I asked for the specific section he was referring to in the appendix. We did have a decent cushion when we used a old water supply from the water department, but of course, the new water flow test was 10psi less in both static and residual. The building is only 10k sq ft and with my dry system attic calc, I am picking up 1/4 of the attic. Hopefully, he will be civilized about it. Some of the other contractors that bid it used an A/F system (350gal)for the attic but I feel that this is too large for that. I may be forced to go that route if he insists on the 10PSI cushion. That way I can pick up 1950sq ft instead of 2535sq ft and use small orifice sprinklers to reduce the over discharge. _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
