I agree with Chris that this is the big issue. One of the a priori s of the standards is the single fire concept. Once you shift away from that all bets are off relative to the NFPA standards you've listed. You are now dealing with a municipal water system in theory and given the size, threat, etc. of your "city" you need a water supply that is commensurate with that concept. OI don't know of any particular documentation you could search but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't guidelines that insurance raters use to rate municipalities that would apply or at least provide a starting point.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Chris Cahill <[email protected]> wrote: > "stakeholder demand to cope with two simultaneous fires." That is the > critical phrase as I see it. If the stakeholder wants this and thus is > willing to pay for it what does it matter? Big pump(s), big tanks(s). Just > be careful on the big tanks. Sounds like this system could also serve > domestic uses much like a municipal system and if you don't get the turnover > in the tanks that water gets "stale". > > Chris Cahill > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Geir Jensen > Sent: Monday, September 20, 2010 5:47 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Fire water mains for multiple building areas > > Fire water mains of a propritary large development shall serve multiple > sprinklered buildings spaced well apart. Envision an industrial plant, an > airport or a university campus including laboratories. The fire water mains > shall also serve fire brigade hydrants. > > In such cases we comply with a number of standards within NFPA (such as 1, > 13, 24, 14, 101 and the occupancy specific standards) or similar. Add to > this national regulations. Add to this hose allowance. Even add to this > stakeholder demand to cope with two simultaneous fires. > > In complying to all requirements, water demand tends to increase by method > of addition to seemingly unrealistic proportion. Each standard incorporate a > kind of safety factor, so in lack of a systematic approach (like probability > risk analysis) water demand is unduly increased. > > Any suggestion to a guide or a standard that addresses this? > Any experience on determining the demand at such large proprietary fire > water mains? > > I am not asking about the water mains design. My concern is assessment of > water demand only. > > > Geir Jensen > COWI Fire > Technical Director > [email protected]<mailto:%[email protected]> > www.cowi.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: AFSA, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, NFSA, AFAA, ASEE, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
