Yeah, that pretty much describes the proposed setup. Two primary pumps at 1500
each to meet a 2900 gpm demand. Third pump in the house is for redundancy.
Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection |
craig.pr...@jacobs.com | www.jacobs.com
1041 East Butler Road Greenville, South
We've done this where there is a need for redundant pumps. Let's assume you
need a 3000 gpm pump. A second 3000 gpm pump is quite expensive. The
contractors had us set it up as (2) 1500 gpm pumps for a 3000 gpm total
capacity. Then, you need a redundant pump in case one is down, so then you
That would be awesome.
Yes, by all means feel free to use that descriptor. I deal constantly with
those who think the only difference between Process equipment and Fire
protection is that we paint our stuff red.
Craig Prahl | Jacobs | Group Lead/SME - Fire Protection |
craig.pr...@jacobs.com
What's the logic? Who knows. I know how this should be done and this isn't
going to accomplish anything except just to complicate the design. The issue
is, one building we have exceeds the 150% out of a single pump so with what
they want to use, one pump won't make it unless we actually
Craig,
We use AutoSprink and I'd be happy to see if I can do that calc for you.
Not sure but think it can be done. You can contact me off forum to discuss.
The main question I have is, can I use your description of the fire
protection expert in future correspondences? I deal with folks like
What is the goal of having 2 pumps? If you want full redundancy, could you just
calculate the system one pump at a time? It seems like having them both running
would be a better-case scenario that would result in added safety. Are they
trying to get by with 2 smaller pumps?
I think AutoSprink
We have a project in one of the Arab states. We are following a little bit of
the UFC and some of the local codes.
The owner wants two pumps selected at 50% of the required capacity instead of
one pump as we would normally provide. His thought is that pump 1 comes on and
runs at 50% of it's
