Guys, Thanks so much for the help. I understand the low-level thing, and Steve Layton, thanks for reminding me of Viking. They linked to ETL 02-15, which is exactly what I was looking for. Mark, this is the situation that they are looking for.
-Ben On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:48 PM, Thom McMahon <[email protected]>wrote: > See the NAVFAC Interim Technical Guidance FY05-01, it speaks to the > requirement for "Low level" foam protection for aircraft hangers in > addition > to ceiling foam systems. In the past this has been done with both > oscillating foam monitors and floor grate foam systems. > > Thom McMahon, SET > Firetech, Inc. > 2560 Copper Ridge Dr > P.O. Box 882136 > Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 > Tel: 970-879-7952 > Fax: 970-879-7926 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mark > Sornsin > Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2009 12:45 PM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: RE: Low level foam systems > > I have to agree with Justin's definition of Low-level: It is referring to > the area being protected - the low areas at the floor where a flammable > liquids pool fire would exist. I'm sorry, but I don't have the source of > that definition. > > I don't want to speak for the US Air Force, but I believe they have moved > to > the Hi-ex system for a few reasons (they are well aware of the other > options > and have consciously selected Hi-Ex): > > 1. Environmental problems relating to AFFF and its disposal 2. Cost of AFFF > foam and the amount used in any discharge - accidental or otherwise. Hi-ex > systems use much less concentrate and usually have little problems with > disposal 'down the drain'. > 3. Relative reliability of Hi-ex vs AFFF through monitor nozzles. Too often > the monitors get obstructed. I don't think the Viking grate system was out > when they switched to Hi-Ex, but that system still has the drawbacks listed > above. > 4. Hi-ex is generally 'drier' than AFFF discharge, so the damage potential > to aircraft or components through contact with the discharge is reduced. > > FYI - the hi-ex requirements of the air force include 1 meter deep foam > throughout the protected space within 4 minutes; and 90% of the plane's > silhouette covered to any depth within 1 minute. > > Mark A. Sornsin, PE > Fire Protection Engineer > Ulteig Engineers, Inc. > 3350 38th Avenue S. > Fargo, ND 58104-7079 > > Direct: 701. 280.8591 > Fax: 701.280.8739 > Cell: 701.371.5759 > > [email protected] > www.ulteig.com > > Confidentiality Notice > This message may contain privileged and confidential information. If you > think, for any reason, this message may have been addressed to you in > error, > you must not disseminate copy or take any action in reliance on it, and > we > would ask you to notify me immediately by return email to > [email protected]. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > DerBlitzkrieger > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 2:10 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Low level foam systems > > Hello, > > I'm reviewing the design and installation for a Group I aircraft hangar of > Type I construction. The plane being worked on is a C-130J-30 and its wing > area doesn't excced 3000 ft², so I only need a sprinkler system, and a low > level low- or high-expansion foam system. > > My problem is, I cannot find a definition for what a low-level foam system > is. IE, max foam generator height, etc. I've checked NFPA 11, 16, 409, > and > the glossary of terms. > > That's somewhat academic, as the system designer opted instead to go with a > roof level high expansion foam system using blower type generators, and > using the sprinkler system to actuate the system. > > This seems like the total flooding roof level system would be a better > protection route than anything a low-level system could provide. What do > you think? And what exactly makes a low-level foam system low-level? > > I would appreciate any insight into this. > > Thanks, > > Ben Young, CET > Fire Protection Construction Lead > DynCorp AFCAP > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[email protected]<to%[email protected]> > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.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)
