I think an augmented hydraulic nameplate would work if done when commissioned just to try and establish some benchmark. Springs weaken in time and corrosion enters into the mix so Pin vs. Pout at Q could change. Also when BFP's are just line sized (like PRV's) as opposed to design rate at velocity listings, losses cam be different than published. I've had PE's require 7.5 FPS flows right out of the listing charts and we couldn't meet them with city pressure (2X design). What then, duals? It's a quagmire. TD
Why cant we just use the hydraulic data plate for the demand needed and add a line for maximum pressure loss allowed through backflow and leave it at that? Then if the backflow is replaced there is a number to work to and you know how much flow is needed if it is measured. On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:34 PM, John Denhardt <[email protected] > wrote: > Sounds like a good opportunity for a public input. > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
