Dan, any way to check the 'tap' at the street? Some kind of restriction at that location may be possibility.
Ed Kramer Littleton, CO > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:sprinklerforum- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of danarbel > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 9:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: C-Factor for old piping > > 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:Sprinklerforum- > [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:Sprinklerforum- > [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:Sprinklerforum- > [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:Sprinklerforum- > [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:Sprinklerforum- > [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:Sprinklerforum- > [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)
