Flow 1250 gpm. 500 at the remote outlets on the remote riser and 250 at each additional riser.
The analysis will be the tricky part because of the various modifications. Depending on the strength of your results, the difficulty may disappear. ----- Original Message ----- From: Todd Williams [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 04:28 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: NFPA 25 standpipe test We already have individual standpipe tests that produce 600 gpm +/- at 60-65 psi. The question is how do we design a test that meets the 25 requirements given the various ages and designs of the system? At 03:26 PM 12/29/2011, you wrote: >Todd- >If the intent of NFPA 25 and this test is to confirm the stuff actually works, >it might be a great time to find out what the pipe scheduled standpipes will >produce- >Better to know soon, rather than find out when there's a fire in an >unsprinklered area (since that's the same area where these old standpipes will >be, Murphy's Law of Cascading Catastrophes) what the FD can expect to get out >of these, and if they blow apart or not. > > >George L. Church, Jr., CET >Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. >PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 >877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax >[email protected] > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Williams >Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 2:59 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: NFPA 25 standpipe test > >Exactly what I am dealing with. Quite honestly, if I saw something that said >flow the most remote hose outlet, I would only flow one outlet at 250 gpm. I >would not from that surmise that they wanted to recreate an acceptance test, >if one was ever done. The hospital dates from at least 1912, although I don't >know when each section was built. There was a major expansion in 2005 when >they added a second fire pump and increase the area by about 40%. > >So would the correct procedure be to go through and date each standpipe and >figure out how each was sized. Those that are pipe schedule could be left >alone, the pre 1993 need to be tested to 1250 gpm (partially sprinklered) and >65 psi at the top outlet and those from 2005 tested at 1000 gpm (fully >sprinklered) at 100 psi? > >Is there anything other than handbook commentary that details exact testing >procedures? We are using 2002 standards. > > > >At 10:12 AM 12/29/2011, you wrote: >>The confusion started when 25 said flow the most remote hose >>connection. Some focused on the fact that it used the singular tense >>verses plural so obviously they only had to flow from ONE outlet and >>since an outlet only has to flow 250 gpm THAT was the amount to flow >>for the test. DOH! >> >>Roland >> >>On Dec 29, 2011, at 6:14 AM, Todd Williams wrote: >> >>>I am working with a hospital with a total of 9 standpipes. There are >>>standpipes that are both pre and post 1993. The original building is >>>partially sprinklered and the new section is fully sprinklered. >>> >>>1. Is the intent of NFPA 25 that multiple standpipes be flowed >>>simultaneously to meet the 1250 gpm demand? >>> >>>2. Should the two sections of the hospital be flow independent of each >>>other? >>> >>>3. If yes to 1 and 2, could the new section be flowed as a fully >>>sprinklered building (thus 1000 gpm) as opposed to 1250? >>> >>>4. How should i handle pipe schedule standpipes, if any exist? >>> >>>I haven't had to deal with 5 year standpipe tests before. >>> >>>Todd G. Williams, PE >>>Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>>Stonington, CT >>>860.535.2080 >>>www.fpdc.com >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>[email protected] >>>http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >Todd G. Williams, PE >Fire Protection Design/Consulting >Stonington, CT >860.535.2080 >www.fpdc.com > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
