The difference is between Hydrant in the street and Hydrant in the internal yard of the premises just after the service connection.
Dan Arbel Tel: 972-4-8243337 Fax: 972-4-8243278 M: 972-52-2810593 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 5:30 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: C-Factor for old piping Dan, Is the 40% difference before and after all the equipment you mentioned, all before, or all after? On Feb 19, 2008 7:02 AM, danarbel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Todd, > > Regarding the service connection - can't be simpler. > > Static Pressure in the Yard and in the Public Street. > > Flow hydrant in the Yard, > > Residual Pressure in another hyd in the Yard and in a Hydrant on the Street. > > > Static the same, Residual 40% difference. > > It is as simple as that. > > No use for C-Factor: There are Valves, Strainer, Flowmetrer, Backflow > Presenter. > > Dan > > > Dan Arbel > Tel: 972-4-8243337 > Fax: 972-4-8243278 > M: 972-52-2810593 > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams > - FPDC > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 2:01 PM > To: [email protected] > > Subject: RE: C-Factor for old piping > > Dan, > > How are you setting up the test for flowing inside the building? Have > you tried running one of these as a hydraulic gradient and > empirically determining the C factor? What pipe materials are being > used? If what you are concluding is correct, then should we be using > a C factor of 84 instead of 140 for underground calcs. > > > > > At 06:33 AM 2/19/2008, you wrote: > > >I think I was misunderstood, because I raised two issues concerning the > >reliability of the calculations and mfg data. > > > >A. New systems and > >B. Old systems. > > > >NEW SYSTEMS: > > > >In tests made across new service connections I got pressure losses ranging > >from 30% to 45%. Just last week on a brand new system I got 40% loss. > > > >Imagine a designer advising the principal that he can construct a warehouse > >with reliance on the public supply providing 910 gpm for sprinklers based > >upon ample water from the Public Supply, all based on Public Supply testing > >on the street and hydraulic calculation. > > > >Then, after completing the system, test is made next to the Risers and it > >appears at the design pressure there is only 600gpm available. > > > >The flow test was made inside the premises; residual pressure was measured > >both within the premises and in the street. > > > >The residual pressure within the premises was lower 40% from that on the > >street. All valves are open and there is no explanation based on Mfg data > >and any calculation. > > > >Now think about the liability of the people involved. > > > > > >OLD SYSTEMS: > > > >A total different situation is the old pipe. There I got loss of 75%. > > > >In one location there was a design of ESFR requiring 1750 gpm. In order to > >get that the principal had to replace a pump and to install 1500-2000 gpm > >pump. > > > >The test I made on behalf of Insurer proved that the mains can deliver only > >500gpm at the required pressure. > > > >In another location, 6" connection from a pump to risers, the demand was > >1780 gpm at 110 psi. The actual measured supply was 400 gpm at 110 psi. > > > >Dan > > > > > >Dan Arbel > >Tel: 972-4-8243337 > >Fax: 972-4-8243278 > >M: 972-52-2810593 > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Greenman > >Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 8:15 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: C-Factor for old piping > > > >There are the two extremes Dan was originally talking about. Old pipes > >with a 140 and old pipes with 40% degradation. Then you get the water > >purveyor that won't let you touch his stuff at all or at best will > >only allow flow testing at midnight (what percentage do you add to get > >a decent picture of peak use?) and only if you capture the water and > >process out the chlorine he put in it. Or he'll give you water data on > >a 50s system that was done in 1986 from a hydrant somewhere close. Or > >he'll model flow by computer since somehow his modeling data can > >magically disspell all the concerns we've been talking about for the > >past few days. And, by the way, running that program will take four to > >six weeks. On top of that nobody from the A&E team is going to take > >responsible charge and the GC who just accepted (verbal, not signed) > >George's design/build proposal didn't do it until two days before > >GEORGE was supposed to start and now George is holding up the project. > >And somehow we manage to get out a product with a huge success rate in > >spite of all that, public apathy, owner hostility and often spotty > >maintenance. There are few days that pass when I'm not sure that > >running a hot dog stand isn't a better idea. > > > >On 2/18/08, George Church <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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) > > > > > > > > >-- > >Ron Greenman > >at home.... > >_______________________________________________ > >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) > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 > >05:50 > > > > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. > >Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 > >05:50 > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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) > > Todd G. Williams, PE > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > Stonington, Connecticut > www.fpdc.com > 860.535.2080 > _______________________________________________ > 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) > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 > 05:50 > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 > 05:50 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ 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) No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 05:50 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.7/1285 - Release Date: 18/02/2008 05:50 _______________________________________________ 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)
