you should have packed your bags after the first test.  You are only looking 
for the Q to meet or exceed the flow portion of the system demand.  

Roland

Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
American Fire Sprinkler Assn.       ---      Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
Dallas, TX
http://www.firesprinkler.org





On Jun 23, 2013, at 1:22 PM, Douglas Hicks <[email protected]> wrote:

> We a forward flow at a church last week.  When we did the  main drain flow 
> test we got 30 PSI.   We tested through a single snoot FDC, with the FDC 
> check valve turned around, the clapper valve was not removed. 
> #1  forward flow test with 1.5” nozzle.  We got 24 PSI, 337 GPM
> #2 forward flow test with 2” nozzle, 16 PSI and 493 GPM
> # 3 forward flow test with 2.25” nozzle, 12 PSI and 536 GPM
> The above results were with a straight fixed nozzle
> 
> The hydraulic name plate 
> Design Density .10 GPM
> Area of operation 917 Sq Ft (the sprinkler protects the basement, which 
> houses a day care, 2 bathrooms, janitor closet, mechanical room, elevator 
> room, and a hallway. 
> System demand at bottom of riser 242.8 GPM at 59.95 PSI
> Water supply flow test, 84 PSI static, 70 PSI residual flowing 981 GPM
> 
> 
> The water flow comes through the wall, 6 inches off the floor, makes a 90°, 
> up through the backflow device, through the 2.5 inch alarm check valve, 3 
> more 90° to the single snoot FDC. Then through the wall and our flow tester.  
> The water was clean after 1 minute.  We did not do a comparison with a 
> certified gauge, nor did we replace the gauges on the wet pipe. 
> 
> The chart is supplied with the flow tester. 
> 
> Do these results look legitimate?  A larger nozzle = more GPM and less PSI?
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to