Only time I had a requirement that we felt was obscene to degrade an existing UG loop - the local AHJ wanted us to use like C=90 for 1960's (?) UG loop around a plant being rebuilt after roof collapse (snow).
Part of our work included cutting out a section of te existing UG and we left a piece of the existing sitting there for the AHJ to examine; it was clean as a whistle and he then, if memory serves me correctly, C=140 or at least something closer to reality (and not requiring a booster pump after the booster pump). Call it a flow test by visual examination:) glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: C-Factor for old piping agreed. AS already stated by others, old underground water supplies require a flow test to assign a reliable C value. Let's not forget to assign a continued amount of degradation if the existing conditions are accepted verses designing to what is tested today. I must confess not exactly sure what NFPA 24 says (if anything) since that memorized text is assigned to a portion of the memory bank that is not longer accessible. Roland On Feb 18, 2008, at 8:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > We > certainly cannot go to the design standard as it is designing with new > pipe. So, what is the answer? _______________________________________________ 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) _______________________________________________ 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)
