I hadn’t planned on leaving the list. Todd Williams
Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860-608-4559 > > On Sep 11, 2024 at 2:49 PM, <Steve Leyton > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > > Ben and Todd: > > > > > > > > Go to the very end of this thread. There’s an instruction there on how > to leave the list. > > > > > > > > Steve L. > > > > > > > > > > From: Ben Hill <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 11:45 AM > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > <[email protected]> > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [External]Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > Is there anyone on this forum that is able to remove me ? > > > > > > > > > > From: Fpdcdesign <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 2:22 PM > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > <[email protected] > (mailto:[email protected])> > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [External]Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > Has there even been a generally accepted correlation of a main drain test to > a hydrant flow test? (Except static pressure). > > > > > > > > > > > Todd G Williams, PE > > > > > Fire Protection Design/Consulting > > > > > > Stonington, CT > > > > > > 860-535-2080 (tel:860-535-2080) (ofc) > > > > > > 860-554-7054 (tel:860-554-7054) (fax) > > > > > > 860-608-4559 (tel:860-608-4559) (cell) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 2024 at 2:14 PM, <Chris Dorn > > (mailto:[email protected])> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > What C factor did you use for your underground piping? If the piping is old > > enough that it is not enamalined or internally coated ductile iron l then > > you should be using a c factor of no better than a 100 not 140. If there is > > significant corrosion in the underground then you may want to use an even > > worse C factor of 80. There could be build up in the underground piping > > that is restricting the flow and causing additional pressure loss through > > the underground line that you are not accounting for. Just a thought. > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Kyle.Montgomery <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 1:55 PM > > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > > <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [External]Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That’s how much you SHOULD have, or that’s how much you MUST have. Add the > > demand (pressure required) and your safety margin to figure out your > > expected pressure. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you’re starting with 87 psi and losing 29 psi for backflow and > > elevation, that leaves 58 psi. At 361 GPM, your 6” pipe should only be > > losing about 0.5 psi per 100 feet of pipe. So, you should probably be > > expecting more than 50 psi at your main drain if flowing the system demand > > (obviously I’m guessing at the configuration of your system). But even if > > you are actually flowing 750 GPM through your main drain test, 6” pipe only > > loses about 1.6 psi per 100 feet of pipe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the inspector might be onto something. That 37 psi doesn’t seem to > > jive. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Kyle M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rocci 3 Cetani <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 10:41 AM > > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > > <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [External]Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We lose 12 PSI for the backflow, a little more than 17 PSI for > > elevation. The calc says we should have about 45.5 PSI @ BOR on the 4th > > floor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rocci Cetani III, CET > > > > > > > > Senior Designer > > > > > > > > Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc. > > > > > > > > 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A > > > > > > > > Morgan Hill, CA 95037 > > > > > > > > P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.1010 > > > > > > > > F-(408) 776-1590 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To help better serve you. Please visit our new and improved website at: > > > > > > > > www.norcalfire.com (http://www.norcalfire.com/) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may > > contain confidential information belonging to the sender. The information > > is intended only for the use of individual or entity named above. If you > > are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to > > deliver this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > > that any disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the > > contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received > > this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to > > arrange for return of the documents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Kyle.Montgomery <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 10:03 AM > > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > > <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: [External]Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From your previous reply: 6” feed in the stairwell with a 4” sectional > > and 2” drain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Residual pressure is dropping 50 psi from the flow test to what you are > > seeing on the gauge in your main drain test. Flowing 361 GPM through 6” and > > some 4”? Even accounting for elevation pressure at the 4th floor, that > > seems like a LOT of pressure loss. Does that number make sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When you run your calc what pressure do you expect to have at the base of > > riser? You said the required pressure is 45 psi, so add your safety margin > > to that and tell me what you expect to have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Kyle M > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rocci 3 Cetani <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 9:54 AM > > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > > <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Subject: [External][Sprinklerforum] Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MDT > > > > > > > > Static 62 (auto sprink says it should be 63.2 so its within a comfortable > > range) > > > > > > > > Residual- 37 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Flow test > > > > > > > > Static 89 > > > > > > > > Residual 87 > > > > > > > > GPM 750 > > > > > > > > > > Rocci Cetani III, CET > > > > > > > > Senior Designer > > > > > > > > Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc. > > > > > > > > 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A > > > > > > > > Morgan Hill, CA 95037 > > > > > > > > P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.1010 > > > > > > > > F-(408) 776-1590 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To help better serve you. Please visit our new and improved website at: > > > > > > > > www.norcalfire.com > > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.norcalfire.com_&d=DwMFIw&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=hLXh1DXRDwJ3oz4y7iNesSsetYhUUV0wawfPGfwmYxQ&m=rjklku6TtnAsbkPAj0Ah9-6LzYkNBBee_Sg6UuXdYXmvRgQlJf4mKyA8eedysC5Q&s=FM5eVjZHgu24BkVkFLo76rDJOoTdYKlfL7O8cgDGBgo&e=) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may > > contain confidential information belonging to the sender. The information > > is intended only for the use of individual or entity named above. If you > > are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to > > deliver this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > > that any disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the > > contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received > > this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to > > arrange for return of the documents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Steve Leyton <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 9:33 AM > > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > > <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I misstated something extremely important: I referred to residual > > pressure instead of PITOT pressure in my mention of theoretical flows. > > Management regrets the error and the committee has authorized a second cup > > of coffee. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve L. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Steve Leyton > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 9:25 AM > > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > > <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Subject: RE: [Sprinklerforum] Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Respectfully disagree that this is a slam-dunk misunderstanding. I > > have experienced two residual-pressure-at-BOR conflicts in my career and > > both went back to the water supply data. One of them had to do with a > > flow test that was taken from the address-side public main, but the > > system was supplied from a side street and it turned out that the POC was > > downstream of a regulating station installed at the branch to that leg of > > the system, so available pressure was 20 psi lower than the test data. > > The other had to do with a flow test taken by a third party contractor > > hired by the project owner, and they used an old riser gauge on the > > hydrant. Turns out that gauge was shot and the residual value was > > corrupt (reading high). When the water supply was tested again, the > > flow rate was nearly identical but the residual was 8 or 9 or 10 psi lower > > using a calibrated gauge with ÷1% error. As Chris noted, residual > > of 9-10 psi renders a theoretical flow equivalent to the demand through a > > 2” orifice per NFPA 291, Table 4.12.1(a), so the AHJ might be onto > > something. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is are the static and residual readings on the riser gauge during the > > MDT, and what were the flow test values? And memo to everyone citing > > NFPA 25, it is a requirement of NFPA 13, ∽29.2.3.4 that a main drain test > > be undertaken as part of acceptance testing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve L. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Travis Mack <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 8:24 AM > > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > > <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A main drain test does not correlate to a BOR demand. You have to flow > > the exact same demand to make them correlate. So just educate the > > inspector. This happens all the time in residential systems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Travis Mack, SET > > > > > > > > M.E.P.CAD| Instructor / Support > > > > > > > > 181 N. Arroyo Grande Blvd. #105 I Henderson, NV 89074 > > > > > > > > www.mepcad.com > > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.mepcad.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=hLXh1DXRDwJ3oz4y7iNesSsetYhUUV0wawfPGfwmYxQ&m=ak88D-Fbuok5cqKxOL10fhK7rcEnUaYjg1aoYAJsRALJc0o65sBATxsNQhgr3Ej7&s=Arl_dm6gvc2m17hVq2LdbEtEDah-b7aM-wnbe-D3AYs&e=) > > | m: 480.547.9348| Whatspp: +14805479348 > > > > > > > > Email: [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AutoSPRINK | AutoSPRINK FAB | AutoSPRINK RVT | > > AlarmCAD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rocci 3 Cetani <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 8:07 AM > > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > > <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Demand is 361 gpm with 45 PSI @ BOR. Main drain test they are getting 37 > > residual > > > > > > > > > > Rocci Cetani III, CET > > > > > > > > Senior Designer > > > > > > > > Water-Based Fire Protections Systems Layout, Nicet Level III > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc. > > > > > > > > 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A > > > > > > > > Morgan Hill, CA 95037 > > > > > > > > P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.1010 > > > > > > > > F-(408) 776-1590 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To help better serve you. Please visit our new and improved website at: > > > > > > > > www.norcalfire.com > > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.norcalfire.com_&d=DwMGaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=hLXh1DXRDwJ3oz4y7iNesSsetYhUUV0wawfPGfwmYxQ&m=ak88D-Fbuok5cqKxOL10fhK7rcEnUaYjg1aoYAJsRALJc0o65sBATxsNQhgr3Ej7&s=-fKDxPy7MHNO47roQeJIyEkbYU5O6fDF5MByTDMROa0&e=) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may > > contain confidential information belonging to the sender. The information > > is intended only for the use of individual or entity named above. If you > > are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to > > deliver this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > > that any disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the > > contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received > > this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to > > arrange for return of the documents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Steve Leyton <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 7:55 AM > > To: Discussion list on issues relating to automatic fire sprinklers > > <[email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected])> > > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] Re: main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Assuming that the demand from the calc area is for OH 1or 2 (and no inside > > hose), your demand is somewhere between 250 and 300 gpm If you modeled a > > full 1,500 sq ft, no? And what is the residual pressure required? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Steve Leyton > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my "Smart" Phone, so apologies for any typos or voice-to-text > > corruptions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Rocci 3 Cetani <[email protected] (mailto:[email protected])> > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: 9/11/24 7:19 AM (GMT-08:00) > > > > > > > > > > > > To: [email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected]) > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [Sprinklerforum] main drain test > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have a jurisdiction that failed our final inspection because the > > residual pressure during the main drain test doesn’t match our BOR residual > > pressure from the hydraulic calcs for and OH extended coverage system. > > Am I missing something? I don’t see how the residual pressure on a main > > drain test has anything to do with the residual pressure from our > > calcsˇ..I was always under the impression main drain tests were to verify > > there hasn’t been a been a drastic change to the supply . This was an > > existing parking garage where they added solar panels on the top level so > > we added a sectional riser @ the top floor and added the new system. The > > fire department just keeps saying to upsize the riser from the 1st floor > > to the 4th floor which literally does nothing to my calcs. The building > > owner has spent 10’s of thousands of dollars flushing the UG, inspecting > > the UG for obstructions, paid for additional flow test and serviced the > > back flow. We are at a complete loss on what else to do as the fire > > department is adamant that’s the main drain test has to match the hydraulic > > calcsˇ..anyone ever come across a situation like this with a jurisdiction? > > Any suggestions? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rocci Cetani III > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Northern California Fire Protection Services Inc. > > > > > > > > 16840 Joleen Way Bldg. A > > > > > > > > Morgan Hill, CA 95037 > > > > > > > > P-(408) 776-1580 EXT.1010 > > > > > > > > F-(408) 776-1590 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To help better serve you. Please visit our new and improved website at: > > > > > > > > www.norcalfire.com > > (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.norcalfire.com_&d=DwMF-g&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=hLXh1DXRDwJ3oz4y7iNesSsetYhUUV0wawfPGfwmYxQ&m=nP9h2h456PibjSYltHaC089-TD3Bl1n84A4GQG7tGUQxwsm_cBAuUH6N7llEvqY5&s=vKbW_TH-HMqG118ScSYZUkjK0Jxq_IycjhdQf3X2Le0&e=) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any document accompanying it may > > contain confidential information belonging to the sender. The information > > is intended only for the use of individual or entity named above. If you > > are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to > > deliver this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > > that any disclosure, copying or taking of any action in reliance on the > > contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received > > this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone to > > arrange for return of the documents. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum > > mailing list: > > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to > > [email protected] > > (mailto:[email protected]) > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum > mailing list: > https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_________________________________________________________ SprinklerForum mailing list: https://lists.firesprinkler.org/list/sprinklerforum.lists.firesprinkler.org To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
