Chapter 14 of NFPA 25 2011 directs us to check sprinkler systems for obstructions every 5 years by opening the flushing connection on the end of the main and removing a remote sprinkler. Though in 2011 at least 6.3.1.1 also specifically states automatic standpipes as those needing flow tested? Mike Morey, SET, CFPS Sprinkler Designer BMW Constructors, Inc. O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 www.bmwc.com
________________________________ From: [email protected] on behalf of Todd Williams Sent: Wed 1/11/2012 9:19 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: standpipe pressure beginnings We don't do similar tests for obstructions in sprinkler systems other than 2" drains, which can be done on manual wet. Damage and leaks would most likely show up under street pressure in a manual wet and could be done with a hydrostatic test in a dry standpipe. We also don't do periodic tests for holding 150+ psi on sprinkler systems. I think my original post did address the issue of pressure reducing devices and those do need to be addressed. At 09:02 AM 1/11/2012, you wrote: >And holds 150+ PSI when its flowed, if a manual wet with <100 PSI on it from >city..... >If there are PRV FHVs, it would be nice to know they're set for 40 PSI instead >of 110 PSI, as at Meridian in Phila. >Would have saved the Phila FD several hours it took to get a sprinklerfitter >on site with the special Giacomini wrench. >Imagine if they'd been able to get wet stuff on the fire hours sooner? >Hey, maybe there IS value to these tests! > > >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 Morey, Mike >Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 8:54 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: standpipe pressure beginnings > >If I had to venture a guess, testing a manual standpipe verifies that it is >free of obstruction as well as damage/leaks/etc? > >Mike Morey, SET, CFPS >Sprinkler Designer >BMW Constructors, Inc. >O: 317.651.0596 | C: 317.586.8111 >www.bmwc.com > >________________________________ > >From: [email protected] on behalf of Todd Williams >Sent: Wed 1/11/2012 8:45 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: standpipe pressure beginnings > > > >There are some buildings here that go back to the 1930s. The hospital was >started in 1912, but I don't think anything is that old. Finding old building >codes could be challenging. Standpipes may have even been retrofits. Unless >there is date stamped on an original device, there may be no way of telling. >Their records of construction are not that complete. I will probably have to >make assumptions on age and come to some agreement with the AHJ. I think the >best we are going to get is something that meets the intent of 25 based on >what we can find. > >BTW, What is the purpose of testing a manual standpipe? I can understand with >an automatic system because you are checking for water supply decline. As long >as their haven't been any design changes and there are no pressure reducing >devices, I can't see what problems could arise. The water supply boosted >through a truck is going to more of a function of the apparatus than any >internal building system. I don't get it. > > >At 08:19 PM 1/10/2012, you wrote: >>I've come across that before. With and without building pumps. I >>asked and was told 'you tell us'. >>With an external piece I'd limit the FDC pressure to 175 and try for >>500, 250, 250.. For lack of no other suggestion. Close the FCV's. >>I've had 3" standpipes with 1 3/4" FDV's, 2 1/2" with 1 1/2". You >>really need to find what BC was in place, read it, and then find what >>edition of 14 was referenced, if any. Gauge the hydrant, gauge the >>FDC, don't trust the piece's (or Bldg. FP's) gauges for everything. >>Welcome aboard. >>TD >> >> >>When were standpipes first stipulated to have a minimum pressure? I >>would assume that at some point there was no minimum pressure standard >>(in the days prior to hydraulic calculations). I am dealing with >>buildings up to 100 years old. >> >>Todd G. Williams, PE >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Sprinklerforum mailing list >>[email protected] >>http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >Todd G. Williams, PE >Fire Protection Design/Consulting >Stonington, CT >860.535.2080 >www.fpdc.com > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > >-------------- next part -------------- >A non-text attachment was scrubbed... >Name: winmail.dat >Type: application/ms-tnef >Size: 5582 bytes >Desc: not available >URL: ><http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120111/7f88a2ea/attachment.bin> >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 8626 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120111/52a66142/attachment.bin> _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
