It would be efficient to start the water supply design by characterizing the water demand. Demand should be a reasonable worse-case fire...which often, but not always, is a full surface burn on white products (probably kero), but it could be fixed-cone roof tanks of crude at a receiving terminal. If crude, you will want more than just big water, because if we don't lay down in under 4 hours (depending on ullage) we risk our firefighters' lives to boilover. Realize tanks with diameters over 200 ft require foam application rates increased ~20-30% above what NFPA 11 recommends. The startling truth is, NFPA 11 doesn't have hard prescriptions for tanks over 200 ft. But what WE do have -- is real world experience from the select few firefighters that extinguished these monsters.
Even if you get the design wrong, odds are a fire in one of the tanks will not occur for decades on, so your responsibility will be forgotten or forgiven. But if a fire in a 200+ ft diameter tank occurs within a handful of years after completing your work there; you will be remembered and looked up. Costs for incomplete/inaccurate design are in the fraction of billions when considering: product loss, repair to tank-of-origin and possibly exposed tanks, repair to hydrant-manifolds, neighboring wetlands, interruption to neighborhood water supply and normal business practices, etc. Then there is the not priceless (just ask BP, since they are still in business) but the ever costly-- loss of reputation. Lazlo Czonka sounds Eastern European/Polish. I know a fire chief at a Czech terminal who can cover all these topics for you; he has been there and done this. Dobre los z tem, Scot Deal Excelsior Fire/Risk Engineering _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
