I've had it go both ways. In Raleigh you had to adjust your flow test to the lowest tank level and calc it all the way back to the flow hydrant.
Then in Qatar on a US base, they designed and installed an entire group of nine dormitories before any underground piping was ever installed. No flushing, no testing, no nothing. When we finally got to turn the first system on, you could hear the rocks and dirt moving into the system. When we tried to do a flow test the underground blew out in two places. Fun times... Anyway, this thread has really made me realize how much I take living in flat coastal plains for granted. Delaware doesn't vary much in elevation, and the water is pretty consistent on the static side per water company. My SOP is to model the underground back to the closest looped or gridded UG line. 99 times out of 100 this is the tie-in point to the city main. I adjust for elevation differences, and include all the fittings and valves in the UG. Sure, I've had to model dead-end main runs as well as industrial site loops to a turbine pump, but its worth it so I can sleep at night. I personally feel that always going back to the flow hydrant, in this area, isn't really necessary. But I'll probably start doing it now. thanks guilt-trippers! ;) Delaware is a bit odd, though, in that the DE State Fire Marshal requires a 10 PSI safety factor on all sprinkler systems for water supply degradation. There is a rumor I've heard that it was supposed to be 10% and they just never corrected it. But as Richard said, Central-Eastern PA is awful. Aqua PA will give you a test two miles away and 3 years old. They will only do a new flow test if the data is more than five years old, or the local AHJ writes them asking for a new flow test. I probably shouldn't be surprised, though; they still want the flow test request via fax! Anybody here doing work lately in Raleigh? Right when I left they started requiring that only PEs could do perform flow tests, if I recall correctly. Benjamin Young On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:22 PM, John Denhardt <[email protected] > wrote: > One minor correction - NFSA proposal (which is supported by the water > supply task group) has language that will be in the body and the annex of > the standard. My task group (chapters 23 and 24) has discussed this > proposal and will offer our input at the meeting next week. It will be > interesting to see what direction the committee goes with this topic. > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 3:21 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot? > > I didn't write it; look for a definition of "qualified" as used in NFPA > 25 and you won't find that either. NFPA standards currently reference > Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, so the "official" > definition of appropriate would be, " right or suited for some purpose > or situation". So if there are known seasonal fluctuations and/or > pressure curves that reflect highest demand windows during the day (in > SoCal that's often mid-morning) then it would be appropriate to acquire > and factor that information when considering the water supply. > > NFSA has made comments in the current cycle for NFPA 13 and 13R, to > include new guiding language in the annexes regarding safety factors in > water supplies. NFPA 14 in first draft adopted a proposal that > addresses the seasonal and peak day demand issue, but not without > resistance from contractor members of the TC who (correctly) noted that > sometimes it's not possible to acquire that information because water > purveyors can't or won't provide it. We're getting there, but I don't > think it's incumbent on NFPA to instill conscience or high standards in > every user of their standards. We have to take ownership of this > ourselves at some point. > > SL > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Brad Casterline > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:01 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot? > > "...shall be made as appropriate." > Define 'appropriate'. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Leyton [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 1:55 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot? > > It may well be a requirement, but back to my rhetorical question: who's > actually doing it? > > SL > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 11:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot? > > Oh, and BTW, taking those seasonal/local/whatever fluctuations into > account IS noted in NFPA 13 - so one could argue correctly that it is a > requirement of "code" (assuming your code references NFPA 13). > > Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection > Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | > http://www.kfiengineers.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Steve Leyton > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:57 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: to Pitot or not to Pitot? > > > How many people, when requesting or performing a flow test or flow > model, specify that the values be measured at peak > seasonal and peak day demands? How much fluctuation does a given water > system or zone experience in a day/week/month/year? How many of us > review those fluctuations and factor them into a flow test once it's > taken? > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud > service. > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com > ______________________________________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > 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
