That backflow preventer listed above 175 psi may be a deal breaker. They
may exist, but I have not seen one listed for that pressure. I did a
quick check of Watts, Ames and Apollo.
If you had to, could you do a pressure reducing valve on the incoming
supply? Not ideal, but may be what you need to get that static pressure
down.
Travis Mack, SET
MFP Design, LLC
2508 E Lodgepole Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85298
480-505-9271
fax: 866-430-6107
email:[email protected]
http://www.mfpdesign.com
https://www.facebook.com/pages/MFP-Design-LLC/92218417692
Send large files to us via: https://www.hightail.com/u/MFPDesign
On 3/3/2015 1:09 PM, Cahill, Christopher wrote:
You are at 184 at the floor? As long as the heads are more than 18 ft up you
are good with 175 rating. Hard to get hps with sprinklers much under 18 ft high
so you might be good.
Chris Cahill
Fire Protection Engineer
Burns & McDonnell
[email protected]
952-656-3652 Richard Mote wrote:
Does anyone know of a CMDA Extended coverage sprinkler rated above 175 psi?
Same question for a backflow preventer?
I have looked at all the manufacturers data sheets and I don't see any, but as
sure as I state categorically that there isn't any such animal, someone will
say but what about XXX mfg.
We have a job with a static of 184, residual of 122 and a flow of 1500, want to
use CMDA K14.0 or 25.2, and would like the extra pressure.
Richard Mote CET
Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc.
_______________________________________________
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
