I'm flying by the seat of my pants (with no lights) but until I prove to myself otherwise (or am beat into submission by the technical committee), I don’t see why we should beat ourselves up and default to what ever seems to be the most conservative. Our supply curve is a straight line relationship from static to some lower residual pressure. We now incorporate a device that has a crazy high initial pressure loss that then drops back into a more normal curve. In looking at SYSTEM DEMAND are we well served by ignoring the actual available pressure that was otherwise lost due to accounting for a wiggle at the front end.
For now, I’ll stick with my mantra: Lead the way, Mr. Custer. I’m right behind you. Roland Huggins, PE - Senior VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org <http://www.firesprinkler.org/> Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > On Jan 11, 2017, at 12:27 PM, Dewayne Martinez > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I have used the static without the backflow loss in the past but I noticed > with the SprinkCad software I am running it uses the mfg curves and it was > showing less static than I had figured. If I take into account the BFP loss > I can eliminate 6 pressure reducing hose valves…..Looks like I will err on > the side of caution and design them in. > Thanks, > Dewayne >
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
