Many years ago when we used to submit to ISO for rating, they has a 10 point deduction for no second supply. They preferred 2 water supplies to every system and many systems got them to achieve the best rating they could. They would consider the FDC a second source if there was a draft location within a certain distance. I haven't done ISO submission in years, I don't even think they still do it for free. Many buildings I test today have dual supplies. There is even a town north of Boston that requires it, with divisional gates on the main on either side of the taps. If I could afford it, I would do it especially if on a corner and 2 mains are obtainable. Tom GRS
Ray, This is a loop around a campus of buildings. The loop is fed from public water in two places. The duplicate run-in is only being considered for one of the four buildings on the campus. The client Rep. that proposed the duplicated run-in is responsible only for that one structure, and this building is not the high rise of the bunch either from a loss/risk perspective. I agree the concept has a value but in this particular case it is hard to justify based on the factors involved. As far as redundancy because of the facility nature it is hard to justify the duplicate run-in because the client does not want to incur the additional cost of a tank and pump, but rely solely on the public water flow/pressure that is available. What I am leading towards is that the client does not see this site as a highly protected risk or they would want more than they are currently asking for. The duplicate run-in does not have any true benefit since the plan shows them side-by-side. Adam Davis Mechanical Engineer If there are separate feeds from two different municipal service zones that are sufficiently remote and permit concurrent maintainability of the underground supply, there may be a benefit to this. We have been working at a large campus that includes two data centers, each with redundant feeds. Obviously a very high value asset. This is an FM insured facility, but this may not necessarily have been their recommendation when the buildings were constructed (circa 1990). The secondary feed could be from a separate municipal zones, from a campus tank/pump, or from an elevated tank. The intent is to eliminate single points of failure the originate outside the facility. I think you need to know more about what is upstream of the facility before you can draw a conclusion. Ray Schmid I have a client that wants a duplicate run-in. What I mean is two parallel run-ins, each with a PIV going to serve the same sprinkler riser. I have never done this before and I know FM (insured) and NFPA do not advocate this kind of arrangement. Has this ever been done before and if so why? I am trying to respond that I don't think it is a worth while investment to "ensure" continuous water supply. Thank you, Adam Davis Mechanical Engineer _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
