Before we went to SprinkCALC and had to use the older built-in Pro2 engine in SprinkCAD, they had these wonderfully over-detailed hydraulic data blocks that included an advanced summary section. This had max density available and the GPM at the max available density. This info was included even in demand-based calcs. The CALC ones are set up to look like actual data placards with some extra info. I kind of miss the old ones.
Here's what the old ones look like: https://www.dropbox.com/s/giuhmotkrjbqi47/Pro2%20data.PNG And the new ones: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pp0cnvl7p5btejv/CALC%20data.PNG Benjamin Young On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 10:38 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know if Hydracad or SprinkCad has the same option as HASS but HASS > puts out a secondary calc called Full Flow. We looked at this and were a > bit surprised of the results. Basically when we calculate a system all we > are doing is proving that we can achieve the required minimum flow and > pressure within the hydraulically remote area. When you're done you end up > with a comparison of REQUIRED versus AVAILABLE pressure and flow. AS long > as the REQUIRED is less than the AVAILABLE all is good. > > What you don't see is what actually could be discharged based on the > ACTUAL pressure and flow. For example if you have a 250 gpm sprinkler > demand with a required BOR pressure of 50 psi and the water supply can > provide 1000 gpm at 125 psi, your FULL FLOW conditions will discharge MUCH > more than the 250 minimum required. > > So when there is a robust water supply your LH system can easily discharge > rates closer to an EH system. > > Also consider the statistical data of most fires being controlled by one > to three sprinklers and we're calculating more than that so you can see > where the difference between physics and reality come into play. > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection Group Lead > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > Spartanburg, SC 29303 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad > Casterline > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Area/Density Method and Walls > > "The designed system has little to do with physics or reality." > > Roland, I did not want to take your statement out of context completely, > because I know how much that hurts sometimes, so I did not trim this thread. > > I am always trying to quantify things as best I can so here is my shot: > > At the time calculations were being accepted into NFPA 13 the 'reality' > was that pipe scheduled systems had worked for 90 years. > In order for proposed changes to be accepted (then and now I guess) an > equivalency of some sort had to be shown, and that is where the 'physics' > came in, along these lines: given a certain water supply, what flows will > a scheduled system produce? Now, for the sake of economy, how much can we > beef it up here and slim it down there and still get equivalent results; > mix a little fluid mechanics theory with a lot of water flow measurements > and... > BOOM! the density/area curves where born. > > So calculated systems using the density/area curves are nothing more than > reconfigured pipe scheduled systems at their roots. > > This is just my current understanding, and if it is mostly correct, it > makes real and perfect physical sense (to me anyway) ;) > > Brad Casterline, SET > > ps- I think calcs were a quantum leap in fire sprinkler design, and I > think the future WILL involve 'fire having something to do with it'. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Casterline [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:12 PM > To: 'Roland Huggins'; 'SprinklerFORUM' > Subject: RE: Area/Density Method and Walls > > Three people took NFPA 13 from pipe scheduled to calculated: > Jack Wood, Lin McCool, and Hasu Doshi. > The Density/Area Curves "had nothing to do with fire" according to Hasu, > the only one of the three still alive. > The calculations were performed to see if they could get mains from 8" to > 6" > by making the lines a little bigger and still get the same total flow. > So Chris, if you were pipe scheduling your set-up you would ignore the > walls, right? So there is your answer. > When I said I would consider any barrier I mean I would see in full color > 3D the flames and smoke and sprinkler spray of what I think would probably > happen, but what I would calc and print and walk the 40 feet to where my > supervising FPE of ~35 years, Hasu Doshi, is, I will have ignored the walls. > Hope that helps Cecil. > > Brad Casterline > Designer Member, AFSA > > -----Original Message----- > From: Roland Huggins [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 10:41 AM > To: SprinklerFORUM > Subject: Re: Area/Density Method and Walls > > Actually a good question. > > Generally speaking you ignore the walls (exception the room design of > course and others like small systems where you simply add additional water > to the calc). The designed system has little to do with physics or > reality. I've yet to see a pendent sprinkler discharge water in a 10X13 > rectangle, the amount of water hitting the flow is NOT equal to the > assigned density (even IF it did flow uniformly throughout the pattern > which it doesn't), friction loss through fittings is not well accounted for > from an academic standpoint, if you move the sprinkler an additional 6" off > a wall it will greatly increase the required pressure but do you think it > will really affect the performance, unbounded fires do burn in a relative > circle but the design as never been based on that etc etc. The reality of > the design is that it is a well defined process whereby different people > get relatively similar results AND IT WORKS to control the fire. > > As such, for a new design, the approach ensures that a fire located > anywhere will be controlled by assigning the remote area in the most > hydraulically demanding location regardless of walls. When modifying a > system, you will not find anything that relaxes this conservative approach. > So if you are looking for a get out of jail card, get comfortably because > you're staying in jail. Now as an engineer evaluating a modification, one > could challenge the conventions of the standard and I believe still have an > adequate system. > If one is thinking to avoid lawsuits, don't be an engineer (or contractor > for that matter). I know of a case where the building burned down and the > control valve was known to be closed and RECORDED as such for 6 months > before the fire.The contractor is still being sued - UFB. > > Somewhat what Cecil said with a touch of my opinion that is not I say not > (think of the big chicken from Looney Tunes Foghorn Leghorn pronouncing > that) to be considered an interpretation for NFPA 13 or any other NFPA > standard (with a few less THE's). > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > > > On May 20, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Cahill, Christopher <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I can't believe I'm asking this question after all these years. > > Anyway, > swallowing pride and asking. > > > > 2010 NFPA 13 strict Density/Area method 11.2.3.2 and 22.4.4.1.1. > > Great > big room being subdivided. Existing system with a new wall added between > heads on a BL. Contractor had to add a head on one side to preserve the > existing spacing (area) of the heads. Without head over 130 sq.ft. I take > the 1.2 ^.5 of the area and get 46.5' required along the BL. Original > system lets say calc'd 5 heads on the BL. But now in the same 46.5' there > are 6 heads on the BL. Do I ignore the wall and require a new calc? What > if the wall is rated 1 hour do I ignore it? > > > > I looked all over and can't seem to find anything definitive. Room > > design > is out so not a consideration. 22.4.4.1.1.1 simply says all the heads in > the 46.5'. I can't find anything that says either to count the wall as a > break so measure 46.5' from the wall in each direction and still see if > there are 5 head or ignore it and there are now 6 heads. I find 11.1.2 > that clarifies to extend the density or not. I don't think that's > applicable exactly. The question is not about whether to extend the density > on either side. Let's just say it's all OH. > > > > It gets a little more complex as on the one side of the wall they cut > > a > head in on the BL but on the other side there is a perpendicular new wall > and they come off same BL and arm over to two more head so if I ignore the > walls there are now 8 heads off the 1 BL. > > > > Prefer a code section or written reference 'cuz this is going to be a > > big > deal if we ignore the walls. Ordinarily with unrated walls they are > ignored in density/area (of course can't find that reference). I think I'm > getting tripped up with the rated portion? Or maybe I'm just tired???? > > > > Chris Cahill, PE* > > Associate Fire Protection Engineer > > Burns & McDonnell > > Phone: 952.656.3652 > > Fax: 952.229.2923 > > [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > www.burnsmcd.com<http://www.burnsmcd.com/> > > *Registered in: MN > > > > > > Proud to be #14 on FORTUNE's 2014 List of 100 Best Companies to Work > > For > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
