Ken,
Don't mind me!- it is my sense of humor- I asked Brian, off forum, for the
curve, and what the FM was wanting- "since the pump can do 150% rated, he
wants it in the calc"- Brian had calc'd the system demand of 1310 to the
hydrant, then added 250=1560. 150% of the rated is 1875- I thought the FM
might be thinking 'I want to see the Pf for 1875 SOMEWHERE, since it has to
be more than for 1560. You have to admit (or maybe you don't) that sprinkler
calcs would have more meaning to some if we said 'this is what will happen',
instead of 'if this happens, this will the the case'.
"two wrongs do not make a right, but three lefts do"
brad casterline :)
Brad Casterline, NICET IV
Project Manager - Fire Protection
FSC, Inc.
P: 913-722-3473
D: 816-841-8732
[email protected]
www.fsc-inc.com
Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment
-----Original Message-----
From: ParsleyConsulting [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:21 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fire Pump's
Brad,
I'd like to ask about your comment:
"good sense to waive off sprinkler calcs as meaningless."
Can you help me understand what you're referring to here?
I thought the concern was valid. The FM appeared to be asking a
legitimate question, such as "what happens if the flow at 150% of rated
capacity draws my municipal main down below 20 psi?" The 2010 edition
of NFPA-20 addressed this in the sections I quoted Brian. I wasn't
there for those ROP/ROC meetings, but the new material was voted in
almost unanimously.
Reading that new language in NFPA-20, it also brought up a point I
hadn't considered - isn't there a requirement to test the fire pump to
that 150% capacity? I thought NFPA-25 called for that in the annual
flow testing in 8.3.3.1. If the municipal main can't supply the water
to meet that 150% figure I'd ask the same questions, I think. Perhaps a
different way than happened for Brian, but I'd ask.
Are you suggesting that such information is irrelevant?
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>e-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com>website
On 11/17/2010 11:29 AM, Brad Casterline wrote:
> This FM's problem is
> that he/she has the good sense to waive off sprinkler calcs as
meaningless.
>
_______________________________________________
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)
