Maybe because the 14 committee knows there is no way to "supplement" the water 
supply. If the pressure and flow at the FDC is great enough to open the check 
valve it will close the riser check. While I don't agree with the 250 gpm for 
each inlet, 500 is more reasonable. 13 should drop "supplemental" altogether or 
replace it with something more realistic.


Ron Fletcher
Aero Automatic
Phoenix, AZ




-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 6:06 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Standpipe FDC Inlets

Why isn't the FDC supplying an automatic wet standpipe system considered 
supplemental as well then?  The required demand for the standpipes are met by 
the sprinkler system but NFPA 14 still requires a 2 1/2"
connection for every 250gpm demand?
Dewayne

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2012 10:09 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Standpipe FDC Inlets

but the FDC on a sprinkler system is SUPPLEMENTAL and you don't have to meet 
the system demand.

Since one has to also calc the system demand from the FDC, has anyone looked at 
the maximum flow they can get through a single 2-way FDC and still meet their 
design demand?

Roland

On Feb 1, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Steve Leyton wrote:

> As do a few on the left side.  It's common to see demand-based  
> requirements for both standpipe and sprinkler systems.   How many  
> ESFR systems are out there with 2-way FDC's?   If system demand is  
> 1,600gpm ...
>
> SL

_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum


_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum

Reply via email to