Thanks George, Over here we do not have "Hose Monster" (to my knowledge) although I have had a look and understand that it measures pressure and full flow on single or multiple connections. I will look into this piece of kit a bit further now that I am aware of the who and what.
For the posed question are we right to think there are distinct stages? 1) Check the pump has the closed head pressure that was there at the handover. 2) If we are testing at the common pipe location we think we will need to know by way of written hydraulic calculations exactly what pressure and flow is anticipated at the location. 3) If we are testing at the end of the line, then we propose that 'to be correct', they both need to be tested concurrently so that the sum of both, equals the design criteria requirements and the readings should be below (because you have more than requirements) or at least on the pump curve line. We agree with you and it is worth emphasis that the pressure at the common pipe prior to the split for roof and rack is very important information, in that it enabled the balancing calculations that were carried out and can also be subsequently validated. 4) Dropping the flow off for system 1 and then measuring the flow at system 2, we think this is a balancing act because as you open up system 2 it will change what is happening at the pre-set system 1, which will create iterative testing as one adjustment after another impacts on the combined systems pressures and flows. Has anyone actually concurrently tested a dual system (1 and 2)? A further thought; to do this inside warehouses using "Hose Monster" seems to be an impractical proposition having due regard for: a) Hoses should be short b) The expulsion of large volumes of water c) It must be cost effective'. Regards Tom -----Original Message----- From: George Church [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 20 September 2011 13:32 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Design criteria check If you're asking why I think you're asking, it may require two separate flows, one at the end of the in-racks, one at the end of the roof system. Throttle flows to balance and replicate the design flows against each other, and you'd have the "bucket test" for a commercial application I think you're seeking. Could also go back to the split, if there's not a separate riser, and do a combined flow, but that wouldn't provide the end of line verification. If they are separate risers, you could drop the flow off system 1 and do end of line verification off system 2; then switch. Only one flowmeter needed in this arrangement, main drain flow via pitot or hose monster, verification of residual at base of riser pressure gauge. I've only had a half up of java, so verify I'm correct! George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Binkley Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:54 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Design criteria check When a fire pump is designed for roof and in rack protection (operating together) how can the end of line design criteria be verified? Has anyone ever done this? Regards Tom Binkley Development Engineer ProjectFire t: +44 (0)1889 270999 ext.123 f: +44 (0)1889 272735 e: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> w: www.projectfire.co.uk <http://www.projectfire.co.uk> Pasturefields Industrial Estate, Pasturefields Lane Hixon, Staffordshire, ST18 0PH, UK PFP Ltd Company Reg. # 3648507 VAT # 715507741 PFE Ltd Company Reg. # 1258677 VAT # 280452174 Information contained within this email is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient and you have received this email in error then any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited and you should contact the sender by email return and then delete all the material from your system. Any views or opinions presented within the email are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Project Fire. This email does not form part of a legally binding agreement. If there is an attachment with this document: The contents of this email attachment may contain software viruses that could damage your own computer system. Whilst we have taken every reasonable precaution to minimize this risk we cannot accept liability for any damage, which you sustain as a result of software viruses. You should therefore carryout your own virus checks before opening the attachment. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20110920/ed864821/attachment.html> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
