flexiblycool
Mechanical
REQUEST FEEDBACK IF THE ATTACHED ARRANGEMENT OF VALVES PACKAGE AND HOSE REELS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH NFPA. THANKS
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
ZONE AND FLOOR CONTROL VALVES ARRANGEMENT PER NFPA 1
- Thread starter flexiblycool
- Start date
- Status
- Thread starter
- #4
flexiblycool
Mechanical
To: 317069: Thanks for pointing out the omission. I was not aware that the answers are sold on the forum. I have read tons of discussions all the way from novices to experts in such forums and no one demanded the last months pay. Thanks anyway for your answer.
To: willard3: Thanks for pointing out the error of posting this question in the wrong forum. I could not locate a more matching forum even after your pointing it out.
Thanks anyway for your response.
To: willard3: Thanks for pointing out the error of posting this question in the wrong forum. I could not locate a more matching forum even after your pointing it out.
Thanks anyway for your response.
EnergyProfessional
Mechanical
There is an NFPA forum on thsi site if that helps.
And i agree with 317069. people typically ask for answers and don't request. Especially with no specific information given.
And i agree with 317069. people typically ask for answers and don't request. Especially with no specific information given.
- Thread starter
- #6
flexiblycool
Mechanical
And i agree with 317069. people typically ask for answers and don't request. Especially with no specific information given.
I did not want to argue with 317069,but I am surprised that you are missed the word:
REQUEST and THANKS in my original post.
I did not want to argue with 317069,but I am surprised that you are missed the word:
REQUEST and THANKS in my original post.
-
1
- #7
Yo Flex
In American English - "Request" does not mean "Please".
Guys, give the folks around the world a break, most of them repeat what is was taught in their school system, their polite way of asking (when they are polite) is a bit different than ours.
Now back to your question:
You are asking if one single floor control valve can be used for five wards. Looks like five buildings joined by a corridor, not much of a floor plan, your diagram.
the answer should be if the Life safety code NFPA 101, i.e you would need two exits for each of the wards, and normally -my two cents (meaning in my opinion flex)-, you need one stand pipe for each ward in its stair. Meaning you need five floor control valves (one per ward staircase) because you have five zones.
You can tell that this is a foreign fire code just from the hose reel in the diagram, NFPA does not hose reels in the US anymore.
Don't try to mix and match codes, you end up non-compliant in neither.
In American English - "Request" does not mean "Please".
Guys, give the folks around the world a break, most of them repeat what is was taught in their school system, their polite way of asking (when they are polite) is a bit different than ours.
Now back to your question:
You are asking if one single floor control valve can be used for five wards. Looks like five buildings joined by a corridor, not much of a floor plan, your diagram.
the answer should be if the Life safety code NFPA 101, i.e you would need two exits for each of the wards, and normally -my two cents (meaning in my opinion flex)-, you need one stand pipe for each ward in its stair. Meaning you need five floor control valves (one per ward staircase) because you have five zones.
You can tell that this is a foreign fire code just from the hose reel in the diagram, NFPA does not hose reels in the US anymore.
Don't try to mix and match codes, you end up non-compliant in neither.
- Thread starter
- #8
flexiblycool
Mechanical
To : Cry22
As far as I am concerned, you have outdone all the others who responded to this thread, by not getting caught by the omission of the word please, even though the non-dictionary compliant substitute Request and Thanks (in advance) were clearly spelled out.
The technical content of your answer is also the best that I have received so far. All the others just lamented at my ignorance without pointing out the discrepancies.
Please accept my gratitude for your informed/learned answer.
Thanks again and would really appreciate any further feedback about the given scenario. PLEASE
Thanks and Bye
As far as I am concerned, you have outdone all the others who responded to this thread, by not getting caught by the omission of the word please, even though the non-dictionary compliant substitute Request and Thanks (in advance) were clearly spelled out.
The technical content of your answer is also the best that I have received so far. All the others just lamented at my ignorance without pointing out the discrepancies.
Please accept my gratitude for your informed/learned answer.
Thanks again and would really appreciate any further feedback about the given scenario. PLEASE
Thanks and Bye
- Thread starter
- #9
flexiblycool
Mechanical
To: Cry22
Please allow me to shed more light about the sketch.
As you have stated, there are indeed two corridors in parallel in each of the wards but both end up in the main corridor and not in any independent staircase of their own.
The zone valves for each ward are provided to isolate the ward from the rest of the network for maintenance and the check valve would prevent draining the pipes of the zone should the main pipe running in the corridor be drained for maintenance purposes.
However, the flow detection switch in each zone appears to be redundant because any flow will also trip the flow switch of the main riser. If there was BMS system with addressable flow switches, it would circumvent this problem, but there isn’t any.
For example, if any zone flow switch is activated it will also activate the flow switch of the main riser.
Furthermore, it seems risky to tap off the FHC from the same branches that supply the sprinklers. But on the other hand, since the reel is only 1 inch (Class 2 installation) with 50 GPM flow, that is equivalent to the discharge of 4 sprinklers, I would like to understand the technical reason why this might not be allowed.
Ordinarily, only 8 sprinklers are allowed on either side of the branch, but with the hose reel, it will exceed that. Given that the pump capacity can meet the flow requirements, it might be OK.
PLEASE rest assured that the system will still be inspected by the fire department and is subject to approval or disapproval.
The intent of floating this question is for educational purposes, because I was unable to find my answers from the various sections of NFPA.
Please shed any more light about this situation at your convenience.
Thanks in Advance.
Please allow me to shed more light about the sketch.
As you have stated, there are indeed two corridors in parallel in each of the wards but both end up in the main corridor and not in any independent staircase of their own.
The zone valves for each ward are provided to isolate the ward from the rest of the network for maintenance and the check valve would prevent draining the pipes of the zone should the main pipe running in the corridor be drained for maintenance purposes.
However, the flow detection switch in each zone appears to be redundant because any flow will also trip the flow switch of the main riser. If there was BMS system with addressable flow switches, it would circumvent this problem, but there isn’t any.
For example, if any zone flow switch is activated it will also activate the flow switch of the main riser.
Furthermore, it seems risky to tap off the FHC from the same branches that supply the sprinklers. But on the other hand, since the reel is only 1 inch (Class 2 installation) with 50 GPM flow, that is equivalent to the discharge of 4 sprinklers, I would like to understand the technical reason why this might not be allowed.
Ordinarily, only 8 sprinklers are allowed on either side of the branch, but with the hose reel, it will exceed that. Given that the pump capacity can meet the flow requirements, it might be OK.
PLEASE rest assured that the system will still be inspected by the fire department and is subject to approval or disapproval.
The intent of floating this question is for educational purposes, because I was unable to find my answers from the various sections of NFPA.
Please shed any more light about this situation at your convenience.
Thanks in Advance.
Flex,
1. Again, try not refer to NFPA if you are using a British, Aussie or other code.
2. When we apply codes, we don't try to understand the reason behind it too much, it is what it is. Apply, period.
3. I believe that the rational behind the US practice doing away with the hose is that occupants are not trained in fighting a fire, and they can be overcome by a fire, run away from the scene and letting hose open, which loses water and pressure in the system when the fire department gets in. Here we leave it to the pros, we provide a 2-1/2" Fire hove valve for Firefighters who will carry their own hose.
4. As for your scheme description, talk to your fire alarm guy, does he want to evacuate all 5 wards with activation of any pull station, flow switch or whatever, your fire suppression should have the same rational as your fire alarm.
1. Again, try not refer to NFPA if you are using a British, Aussie or other code.
2. When we apply codes, we don't try to understand the reason behind it too much, it is what it is. Apply, period.
3. I believe that the rational behind the US practice doing away with the hose is that occupants are not trained in fighting a fire, and they can be overcome by a fire, run away from the scene and letting hose open, which loses water and pressure in the system when the fire department gets in. Here we leave it to the pros, we provide a 2-1/2" Fire hove valve for Firefighters who will carry their own hose.
4. As for your scheme description, talk to your fire alarm guy, does he want to evacuate all 5 wards with activation of any pull station, flow switch or whatever, your fire suppression should have the same rational as your fire alarm.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question