Thanks for the advice. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 2:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: forward flow test problem
Since I assume you're doing an NFPA 25 inspection, and your within the allowed 10% variance, I'd note it on both the riser and in the inspection form, and move on. If you don't meet the 10% next year I'd start all the flow testing ect. Which your contemplating now. If you really feel you need to do more now, I'd throttle your flow back to 252 Gpm and verify the residual. I think you'll find it much closer to the hydraulic demand, at the inlet to the BFP.(Base of riser) 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 Dewayne Martinez Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 12:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: forward flow test problem The worst case is 252GPM @ 59 PSI with no inside hose. When I plot this on the adjusted water curve it is below the curve but does not meet the 10% minimum safety factor required. I think I will try to run a new flow test to try and get to the bottom of things. _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
