Steve, That's a great pipe dream and would work well in a place as sophisticated as SF or LA, but this is a small city hospital. This AHJ's response to everything (besides 'what do you want in your coffee') is to do it per NFPA. Cooperation and coordination are probably going to minimal. I can't even verify right now if a proper standpipe acceptance test was done when the system was installed. So far, they, the owner, the insurance company and whatever agency the reports have been sent to has accepted the 9 single standpipe tests at 65 psi with max water flowing about 600 gpm, back to at least 2000. That is going to require re-education on a massive scale with little, if any compensation for it.
This is not a project I am involved with. I am just answering a question from a client regarding a letter the insurance company asked for. At 09:43 PM 12/29/2011, Steve Leyton wrote: >I was trying to stay away, I really was, but Geo's e-mail is a great segue ... > >It is a great time to see what the system(s) will actually produce at >different inlet pressures. And to add signage to the FDC(s) that tell the >responding engineer what to pump in order to get whatever GPM and PSI are to >be delivered at the referenced outlets. If you have both 65psi and 100psi >era Class I standpipes, you can definitely work with the AHJ to come up with a >mutually satisfactory methodology for testing and performance. Verify with >the AHJ what types of nozzles or tips they use or carry for attack lines what >the minimum good working pressure is for each. If the systems are built with >standard weight fittings and valves, then see what you can get out of the >remote standpipe at 175psi inlet pressure and call it a day, unless the >performance is so grossly inadequate as to cause concern for the AHJ, in which >case you have what is known in technical terms as a SNAFU. > >As an example of how at least one FD has grown to address this wide range of >standpipe performance (sometimes in the same building), City of San Franciso >trucks and engines carry three different types of tips. If the ones fitting >to the hose packs aren't right for a particular fire, they can go all the way >down to low pressure smooth bore or straight stream. But it starts with >knowing what's gonna come out and the signage is now a prescriptive >requirement of both 13 and 14, and which can be easily retrofitted. > >SML > >________________________________ > >From: [email protected] on behalf of George Church >Sent: Thu 12/29/2011 12:26 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: NFPA 25 standpipe test > > > >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 > > >-------------- next part -------------- >An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >URL: ><http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20111229/accee849/attachment.html> >_______________________________________________ >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
