Last week, I posted a Main Drain Estimator tool that runs a supply-side hydraulic calculation in loops until it balances. This tool is showing promise as being much more in line with expectations for estimating flow through a main drain.

Based on your feedback from this past week, I've updated the tool to incorporate three different main drain models that insurers have used to estimate main drain flow so that you can compare our results to others.

One important note: all other three models depend on using a 2-inch main drain. If the actual size is different, then the comparison is not applicable (results in N/A in our tool).

I ran an error analysis based on our method; the c-factor is the biggest driver of variability. Using a C-factor that's off by 10 of the real value would result in an error of about 7% of our predicted flow. It's not terrible, but accurate C-factor use without looking inside the pipe would naturally be a source of uncertainty here.

One direction I'd like to take next is to chart the main drain results against a prior flow test and/or against a hydraulic placard. We could add accommodation to account for underground losses when comparing a flow test at the street, and we would be able to represent the main drain test, the flow test, and the hydraulic placard based on riser data on the same chart. 

In theory, should the main drain be clear of obstruction, this could offer a very quick gut-check on whether the main drain results are within expectations from an original water supply (which is the purpose of a main drain test). It could also provide an initial flag if the water supply has degraded below the system design, which would warrant some further evaluation.

There's certainly plenty of nuance and debate here about NFPA 25 inspection and testing scope, but for practical purposes from a building owner or insurer's perspective, a quick-use utility tool that could help find those problematic properties could offer some benefit to the industry.

Check out our updated tool below, and feel free to comment on the updates or your thoughts. Thanks!

Last week, I wrote about why estimating the flow through a main drain is more complex than just calculating the resistance of one open orifice to how much flow comes out.

The problem with simply using an open orifice is that we calculated the maximum possible flow from that opening. That was what I wanted in order to hand off a maximum possible flow for a plumbing designer to accommodate, but the maximum calculation is problematic if we want to estimate how much actual flow comes from a main drain.

In last week's comments, we shared different ideas and models too (thank you!).

Essentially, at least in theory, the flow from the open end of a main drain is restricted at the opening but also throttled by the pipe path along the main drain (including the length of pipe, friction, and any obstructions), the main drain valve, and the parameters of the riser.

Additionally, our riser gauge measures the normal pressure even when water flows. It's not a pitot gauge.

Considering that, I took the conceptual outline from last week and built an iterative tool that takes all the input information we need and estimates flow from a main drain.

What this does is take the main drain configuration, take the main drain residual pressure we get, assumes and loops a pressure balance, and turns out a theoretical flow from the main drain.

The caution here is that this is an estimation, and we haven't proven what input values are most-accurate from real-world tests. For instance - how much of the pipe is obstructed, on average? What c-factor best represents real-world conditions? What would an error analysis suggest about our range of possible flow?

All these can be tested and figured out in time, but in the meantime I wanted to offer up the first draft of the tool for your exploration and feedback:

Give it a spin, and let me know what you think.

If you find a bug, let me know and we can discuss improvements in the comments.

Thanks as always for being part of our community here! Hope you like this one.

​- Joe

One of the curiosities I have every time I run a main drain or see one run is how much flow the system is actually discharging.

From the amount of discussion and inquiries one of our tools has generated, I know many of you are curious about it, too.
 
HOW MUCH DOES THE MAIN DRAIN ACTUALLY FLOW?
For one – if we knew with some certainty how much flow came through the main drain, then we could actually complete a backflow forward-flow test entirely just by opening up the main drain all the way.

That’s the theory, at least, that I’ve heard some people point to as to why they don’t provide another fixed means of forward flow.

For a lower hazard system; say a system whose greatest challenge is still Light Hazard – it’s not unfathomable that a fully-open 2-inch main drain could flow at least the system demand (which might be as low as 120 gpm for a minimum quick response (QR) reduction area and 30% overage, no hose allowance included).

Even for an Ordinary Hazard Group 2 system using a QR area reduction and 30% overage, the system flow may still be in the 220-250 gpm range. Would a fully open 2-inch main drain be enough to handle it?
​
Or what if that main drain was upsized to 2-1/2 inches?
 
This piques the curiosity, right?
 
IS FORWARD-FLOW ACHIEVABLE THROUGH A MAIN DRAIN? IF SO, WHEN?
It would be very nice to have an idea if forward flow was achievable for some of these lighter-weight systems just through the main drain.
 
The Drain Flow Estimator

We introduced a tool we called the Drain Flow Estimator tool a while back (https://www.meyerfire.com/blog/a-new-fire-sprinkler-test-drain-flow-calculator), which was built to estimate the maximum possible flow from an inspector’s test or a main drain.

That tool only uses one calculation: discharging water through an open orifice:

Let’s say we have a very large water storage tank and poke a hole in the side of it near the bottom. How fast does water drain from the tank?

We have a formula for that. It’s Q = 29.84 C d^2 √p.

That is, we have a flow (gpm) that is constrained by the type of opening (C, the discharge coefficient), the diameter of the opening (d, in inches), and the total system pressure at the opening (p).

​We use this regularly when we conduct fire hydrant flow tests. The equation translates pitot pressure to how much flow comes out of the opening. We took measurement inaccuracy into account and built this out into its complete tool for converting pitot pressures to flows (https://www.meyerfire.com/blog/new-pitot-to-flow-rate-converter-with-precision).

THE PROBLEM
​Here’s the problem with using only that equation to estimate flow from a main drain – it’s the maximum possible flow.
​
Now, it meets the need that we had for building the tool—to estimate the maximum possible flow so that we could size drains appropriately (hint: don’t run an inspector’s test or main drain to a janitor’s sink).

It serves its purpose of estimating the maximum possible flow.

However, the Drain Flow Estimator tool doesn’t provide a realistic amount of flow through the main drain or inspector’s test and drain, only the maximum.

That’s problematic if we want to know the actual flow through a Test and Drain or a Main Drain, as discussed earlier.

Why is it the maximum and not actual?

#1 PIPE CONSTRICTION
That is, we’re not accounting for the pipe's constriction between the opening and the riser, the friction loss within the riser itself, the loss through the elbows along that path, or the constriction at the valve opening.

#2 TYPE OF PRESSURE
Another thing we’re not really considering is the type of pressure that’s measured. When we take a pitot pressure measurement, we insert a tube into the centerline of the water flow.

The pressure measurement taken from a pitot gauge accounts for the static pressure of the water (the normal pressure that is exerted in all directions) and the velocity pressure caused by the forward motion of the water.

​That’s what a pitot gauge is measuring—the total pressure.

​A gauge on a riser does not measure total pressure; it measures normal pressure. That is, it doesn’t matter if the water is standing still or moving at 20 feet per second. The gauge is only measuring the pressure that runs perpendicular to the pipe in the normal direction.

#3 LOCATION OF PRESSURE
The last source of error is where the pressure is measured.

For a hydrant flow test, we measure the pitot pressure immediately after the hydrant opening. We use the formula and convert it to a flow, knowing the pressure right at that opening.

If we instead use this same formula for an open orifice but add a pressure upstream at the riser, then we’re using a higher pressure than what will be available downstream at the opening of the main drain.

If we want to know the maximum possible flow, that’s probably fine. That’s the extreme case.

But if we want to know the actual flow through the drain, then that’s problematic; it’s another source of error.
 
BUILD A TOOL THAT CAPTURES ACTUAL?
So, how would we construct a tool that estimates the actual flow through a main drain?

Well, in theory, we could work an iterative loop like this:

1. Assume a pitot pressure right at the opening of the main drain (the 45-degree elbow discharging to the outside, for instance).
2. Translate the pitot pressure to a flow based on the characteristics of the opening.
3. Knowing the flow through the opening, we could calculate the friction loss as we move upstream through the main drain.
   1. We will gain pressure as we move upstream, just as in a hydraulic calculation.
   2. This would require an estimated C-factor for the pipe, knowledge of how the main drain is routed, and information about the pressure loss at a main drain valve.
4. At the point where the drain connects to the riser, we could determine the pressure at that intersection, and we still know the flow.
5. We calculate the friction loss going upstream through the riser until we reach the riser pressure gauge.
   1. We would need to have an estimated C-Factor for the pipe and know the routing of the riser.
6. Now, we would have a total pressure where the gauge is located.
7. We also know the velocity of the water movement in the riser, which we can use to translate our total pressure into the normal pressure, which is what the gauge is reading.
8. We would compare the estimated normal pressure calculated to the actual normal pressure in our real-world test.
   1. If our estimated pressure at the riser is too high, we restart our loop and assume a lower initial pitot pressure.
   2. If our estimated pressure at the riser is too low, we restart our loop and assume a higher initial pitot pressure.
9. We iterate this loop until we’re close enough for our needed accuracy.

 
As a result of this process, we would have an iterated, balanced supply-side hydraulic calculation that estimates the flow coming through the main drain.
 
If you love the math or the theoretical exercise – weigh in on your take. Open to ideas on this.

DOWNSIDE & POTENTIAL MISUSE
Now that’s great Joe, so go ahead and build it (typed in sarcastic voice font).

We can build it (and probably will because I’m curious). If we do, I’d want to go out to a parking lot and validate this in the real world 30 different ways (looking at you Fire Sprinkler Podcast).

But beyond that, there’s a fundamental issue with a calculator like this – it’s still an estimated amount of flow based on a pressure measurement at the riser but with the flow coming out downstream some distance later.

AN ESTIMATE BUT NOT REALITY
It’s not a measure of the actual flow through the opening; it’s only a calculated estimate.

The downside of not being a measurement is that if there’s some wrong assumption—say a C-factor or number of elbows or whatnot—then we introduce inaccuracy.

But it's probably hard to detect. What if we have some type of pipe constriction that we can’t see from the outside? Say there’s a large rock or dirt buildup, or the coupon that was cut for the main drain tap is actually smaller than it should be.

That constriction would throttle the actual flow down but maintain the same or higher pressure upstream at the gauge.

That is – it would look like it’s flowing more water than it actually is.

The advantage of measuring the actual flow out of a main drain is that we know with some certainty what the flow is achieving and not an estimate.

Fundamentally, I know of two quick(er) ways to measure the flow, even for a main drain.

There’s the bucket test, in which you flow into a large 55-gallon drum and time how long it takes to fill it up. Divide your bucket size by the time it takes to fill up, and you then have your average flow.
​

​Then there’s the pitot measurement. Connect a test hose with an adapter to the main drain, measure the pitot pressure, and convert it to a flow.

​Either way, you could measure the flow coming from the opening. That’s far more accurate, of course, than a tool that estimates and incorporates a handful of assumptions.
 
THE UTILITY?
Is this kind of tool, that provides a theoretical balanced supply-side flow with the supporting math and documentation, something that would be of interest?

Do you see the harm in having an estimate doing more harm than good here?

Do you ever use a main drain for forward flow on less hazardous systems, and if so, do you verify what that flow is?

Curious on your thoughts about this as a challenge in the lens of trying to create helpful resources and not circumvent or obstruct good practices.

As always, appreciate you being here and being part of the community.

​- Joe

Last week, we posted results on what sprinkler contractors need as part of a set of biddable construction documents.

One of the top needs that sprinkler contractors expressed was whether the owner had any insurance-driven criteria that applied to the project.

THE SURPRISE
This likely isn't a surprise if you've encountered it on a job: a building is designed, bid specs are applied, bids are collected, the contract is awarded, sprinkler shop drawings are created and submitted, and then out of the blue [BOOM!], a review comes in from FM Global.

FM Global? Did someone know that this was an FM Global job?

No discredit to the FM Global team whatsoever - they do an excellent job in establishing a higher level of excellence and have propelled our industry for years - but shouldn't we all have known that FM would be a part of the project from the beginning?

That answer, of course, is yes.

CHALLENGES WITH INSURER-DRIVEN CRITERIA
It can be tough to grapple with if you've been on a project where that's been a surprise. It can also put a building owner in a difficult position of mediating what their insurer wants them to provide against the increased cost of doing so via change order.

As we've discussed, delegated design is one key area where a consultant provides tremendous value in coordinating and pre-planning these asks well before bid day, which would create a smoother project experience. Instead, missing or ignoring insurance criteria altogether can set the project back in schedule and cost.

From the consultant's side - it's not always easy to get a straight answer from a building owner. 

VARIABILITY AMONG BUILDING OWNERS
Big developers or large corporate clients are often very informed on their design standards; they may even have a complete set of standards themselves ready to distribute.

Smaller or first-time building owners are often less likely to carry insurance criteria that stipulate much in terms of fire protection above code minimum. 

But what about the projects in between? 

What about the corporate client building in the area for the first time? The regional grocery chain? The distribution center? Mid to large retailers? Restaurants? Healthcare? Manufacturing? Hotels?

Anything in this range could carry insurance that mandates a standard above NFPA 13 in certain areas, including critical ones like sprinkler design criteria.

Just because an insurance company isn't FM Global doesn't mean that FM Global Standards don't apply; many other carriers could still follow FM Global criteria or even have a more comprehensive program like XL GAPs (or something similar).

​
BEST PRACTICES FOR GETTING THE INSURANCE QUESTION ANSWERED
What I'm most curious about is what has been your most successful process for getting this information from a building owner.

As a consultant, I had my best luck when we'd have a design meeting, and the owner or owner's representative was in the room, and I could ask directly about any insurance mandates above code minimum.

The line I used often sounded like, "Do you carry any requirements or standards above code minimum, like FM Global?"

If the owner or owner's representative was familiar with FM Global, there'd usually be a quick yes and they could confirm fairly quickly.

Honestly, all other cases would get a blank stare. I'd explain that the insurance criteria above the code were not the norm but that we'd want to incorporate it if there were any that applied.

In most cases, this was enough information to work from, but I never liked the inexact nature of going by a mostly uninformed answer. I found it to at least elicit a response, unlike emails, which tended to never get returned, but still - there's got to be a better way.

THE BIGGER QUESTION: WHAT WORKS BEST FOR YOU?
From last week, we know that insurance criteria are a major factor in determining what should be in the bid documents.

So my question to the consultants here is: What have you found to be the best approach to getting this information from an owner?

What method has worked to (1) actually get a response from the right person and (2) get a response that's usually accurate?

Let us know in the comments here. I have my lame approach but I'd much rather collaborate and share ideas on what works so that, as a whole, we can do a better job of creating a quality set of bid documents.


Thanks for continuing to advocate for the industry. Hope you have a great rest of your week!

- Joe

Perhaps the biggest elephant in the room of the fire sprinkler design industry is the problem of delegated design. 

It's not the concept, per se, but its execution that leaves so many projects in bad waters ripe with change orders.

I'm looking specifically at projects where little to no effort was put into the fire protection bid documents, and as a result, the bidding contractors are worse off than if no fire protection bid documents had been provided at all.

BAD DELEGATED DESIGN
Bad delegated design (1) makes bidding and estimating far more difficult, (2) performing the work more difficult, (3) can create costly change orders for the owner, (4) can actually get in the way of code compliance, and (5) hurts bidders, building owners, and the practice of fire protection engineering overall.

Fire Protection doesn't have to be a "necessary evil."

It doesn't have to be the bane of every architect and building owner.

We don't have to be the bad guys: this is an issue we can do something about.

And make no mistake - I'm not immune to putting out sour projects. I can improve just as much as I like to soapbox.

Personally, I think this should be the central focus for any fire protection engineering organization. It's the #1 issue I hear about from the construction side.

Cleaning up the practice and improving the building owner's experience with a smooth, streamlined process with far less adversarial friction can put fire protection in a warmer "thanks-for-looking-out-for-us" light rather than what it is today for many.

HOW TO FIX?
I don't get the impression the issue has much of anything to do with those who are fire protection people - those inside the industry who learn, read, push themselves, get educated, engage online, ask questions, go to the fire protection conferences, get their CEUs in fire protection, or get credentialed in fire protection. I don't get the sense that the problem is from those who are plugged-in and are invested in fire protection.

But, that doesn't mean we let it slide.

This is a topic that we're not going to let go until it's far better than what it is today. If you want to read more on this, see these pieces:
- The Delegated Design Problem
- FP Engineering Documents: What Goes In?
- A Practical (Real-World) Design-Spec Checklist
- The "Lanes" of Fire Protection Pre-Bid Consulting
- Why Isn't All Sprinkler Design Done Upfront?

WHAT MATTERS IN A SET OF BID DOCUMENTS?
We're working on material to help build up the consulting side - what we need help with today is identifying what it is that actually matters to sprinkler contractors in executing a project (estimating, bidding, managing, designing). 
​
IF YOU WORK IN SPRINKLER CONTRACTING, WE NEED YOUR OPINION HERE:

Yes, this is a survey - it should take about 120 seconds - but it's one where we're looking for specific scoring data so that we can relate, score, and real, helpful give feedback to consultants on how they can create better documents.

This is an opportunity to be heard and help us deliver something tangibly helpful in improving the industry.

We'll follow up with the data we collect and give that back to you as a big thank you for your time and input.

I hope, in time, to put together entry-level educational material on exactly these topics but have your voice in as part of that process. 

Plenty more to come on this topic. After you've had a chance to take the poll and score what matters to you, come back here and share your take in the comments below. Your take is always appreciated!

Thanks as always for being part of this community, and have a great rest of your week!

​- Joe

Have you specified or encountered a specification that asks for the pipe to be "as high as possible" in areas with exposed structure?

If so, does that mean we want to pipe through the open web of a structural joist?

THEORY VERSUS REAL-WORLD
This might be the most classic design versus real-world installation conundrum. Just because something might be possible doesn't necessarily mean it will fit. 

Well, for some years now, I've asked people I respect how they determine whether a pipe can go into the joist.

SHOULD WE ROUTE IN OPEN WEB JOISTS?
We might first want to ask whether we should put the pipe in the open web joist, to begin with.

If the joists are shallow, not going to be aligned, or will they be interrupted by solid beams and the end of each bay? In those cases, then the pipe really shouldn't be up there anyway.

But, assuming we do have some depth to open-web joists, and the joists will be aligned (giving us an open and continuous path to hang the pipe), we still need to know if the pipe will fit.

LENGTH OF PIPE THAT WILL FIT
The answer from an novice consultant might be - well of course it'll fit. Just cut the length of the pipe down so that it'll fit up there.

But where do we draw that line? If we have hundreds of feet of pipe run in an open-structure area, it's going to be a labor and materials nightmare if we have to use 6-ft long sticks of pipe the whole way down. Additional fittings, additional hangers (if we want a hanger on each stick of pipe), additional labor... major cost impact.

If we can use cut lengths of 10'-6" (half of a full-length 21-ft stick of pipe), then maybe that cost impact isn't as bad.

CALCULATED APPROACHES
In asking around, I've found three different calculated methods of determining whether a pipe will fit (mathematically) to slip up and into open web joists.

Those three methods, as I can best identify, is a calculated simple method using exponential relationships of the joist depth and gap-between joists (I called it the Simplified Formula, please inform me of a source if you know it). This is the second calculation.

The third was originally credited to AFSA's Ed Miller from the 1990's, which I've identified third in the list and seems to generally be the most-conservative of the three calculated concepts.

And the main concept is a purely diagrammatical calculated approach based on the visual. The concept is that the slope of the pipe just as it slips past the joist on the right is calculated, the rise of the pipe is calculated and compared against the available open height in the space (can the height of the left-end of the pipe fit underneath an upper-chord?).

SKETCHED APPROACH
Of course, we can always draft or model up an example and see it for ourselves, but my hope in creating this tool is to shed some light on the practicality of putting pipe up into the joists and help see that relationship come together.

​Below is the tool:

TOOLKIT
If you like tools like this - you should check out our Toolkit and MeyerFire University (which includes the Toolkit). Plenty more practical tools for everyday use for the fire protection professional.

YOUR TAKE
Where do you land on this?

Have you used any of these methods before, or do you have your own?

Do you know where these originated, and if so, point me in the right direction so I can credit the right source?

​Comment below - would love to know your thoughts on the topic and where you see something like this helping.

We've made a few updates to our Trapeze Calculator tool - primarily with code references and table updates from the 2013 through 2022 Editions of NFPA 13. The tool now features updated references for the different editions of NFPA 13.

QUICK CALC
With only a few "knowns" (pipe diameter and schedule, and distances to nearest structure), you can now quickly calculate the required section modulus, visit options for the trapeze bar, and see these options schematically in a scaled section view.

MULTIPLE PIPES?
Do you have multiple pipes on a trapeze? Calculate the section modulus required for each, add the two moduli together, and simply override the Section Modulus Required value below to see your options.
​

This week I've updated our Quick-Response Remote Area tool, which quickly takes a few considerations into play and reduces the size of a fire sprinkler design area based on the Quick-Response Reduction that's allowed in NFPA 13. This new free version incorporates references in NFPA 13, 2022 Edition.

Suppress Early, Suppress Less
The concept behind reducing the calculated hydraulically remote area in a fire sprinkler system is entirely based on fighting a more minor fire earlier in the development of the fire.

There are a handful of factors that contribute to the timing of sprinkler response (a good future discussion), which include the thermal sensitivity, sprinkler temperature rating, distance of sprinklers relative to the ceiling, sprinkler spacing, ceiling height, and dynamics of the fire itself.

The reduction in the hydraulically remote area is based upon comparative tests of quick-response spray sprinklers against standard-response spray sprinklers. According to the NFPA 13 handbook, the tests demonstrated that the earlier the water is applied to the fire, the smaller the fire and, ultimately, the fewer sprinklers needed to activate.

Not Universally Accepted
While the remote area reduction has been included in NFPA 13 for years, it is not universally accepted. Many engineer specifications don't allow the reduction, and design standards for significant organizations such as the Department of Defense (UFC 3-600-01) don't permit it either.

Why not accept the remote area reduction, if NFPA 13 includes it? Like other elements in hydraulic design for fire sprinkler systems, not using the remote area reduction provides an additional safety factor to the system.

Additionally, since the quantity of sprinklers relates to the quantity of water flowing in the system, main sizes are directly impacted by using or not using the quick response area reduction. Building owners may opt to not want to reduce the remote area to preserve reasonable (larger) main sizes and give themselves flexibility on building modifications and sprinkler system changes in the future.

Quick-Response Area Reduction Calculator
This quick calculator is in part a checklist of prerequisites to reduce the remote area on a fire sprinkler system, in part a method of showing your work, and in part a quick calculator on determining your final remote area size. Don't see it below? Give it a try here.

I hope you find these tools helpful. Free ones are available on the TOOLKIT dropdown at www.meyerfire.com. If you're a MeyerFire University member, you get all these right in your iOS or Android app too.

Thanks, and hope you have a great rest of your week!

- Joe

I’ve read that we tend to overestimate what we’re able to achieve in short time spans – days or weeks – but we tend to underestimate what we’re able to achieve in long time spans – years.

I absolutely believe that to be true. Very small but consistent steps of progress over years add up; and much of the direction has simply been from listening to our ongoing challenges and trying to think about novel ways of addressing those challenges.
​
NFPA EXPO
Two weeks ago, we hosted our first MeyerFire booth at the NFPA Conference & Expo in Orlando. What a hit! I’m so thankful to those that stopped in and checked out the latest of what we’ve brought to life. I wanted to share a bit about that here.

SHORT ATTENTION SPANS?
While learning would be a lot more fun if it was all simply a video game – there’s a fair amount of data to back up that concept.

We dog on the youngest generation for short attention spans (side note: dogging on the youngest generation has been a documented tradition for over two millennia). We harp on the youngest generation for not wanting or being willing to learn the same way ‘we’ did (books, asking questions, mentoring, willing to get dirty, or insert-whatever-old-method-here).

Yet, that same cohort can spend hours without eating to hyper focus on video games. It’s not an attention span issue. It’s an engagement issue.

And before we criticize new learners for not being willing to pay attention, remember that new learners today are working from a completely different set of resources than was available even a decade ago.

We live today in a world of information abundance. 

INFORMATION ABUNDANCE
We have more information available in our pocket today than the President of the US did just 15 years ago.

There is a how-to on nearly everything online. Accessible, immediate, helpful, concise.

Then we get to training in our arena, and the delivery is still much the same that it was literally thirty years ago.

Maybe it’s not the new learners who aren’t taking to the same information as we did some time ago. Perhaps it’s those new learners today, rightfully, have a much higher level of expectation for learning than in years past. Maybe it’s the delivery, the content, the accessibility, and the engagement that really needs to step up and deliver in a way that’s relevant to today.
 
ENGAGED LEARNING TO MEET HIGHER EXPECTATIONS
It's that concept – engaged learning in an immediate, accessible way – that led us to create virtual interactive simulations. It was not easy in the least and is well into over a thousand hours and a major financial investment – but the result is a learning environment that’s always available, immediate, at your fingertips, and engaging.

At NFPA we debuted our new Fire Pump Room: an interactive environment with an incredible amount of detail. This is live at MeyerFire University today.
​
The Fire Pump Room is a virtual space that runs a fully balanced supply-side hydraulic calculation in real time.

It has a working test header with hoses, an operable fire pump, both analog and digital pressure gauges, operable OS&Y and butterfly valves, inspector’s tests and main drains, LED indicators on monitor modules, working fire pump and maintenance pump controllers, and a functioning and controllable supervising fire alarm control unit.
There are over 1,900 dynamic elements in this space alone, that respond in real time.

Within this room, you have all the equipment and capability to run a complete fire pump acceptance test and backflow forward-flow test.

At the NFPA Expo, we hooked up an XBOX controller and played it live. It was awesome!

I’d like to share here a bit of the level of detail we included to make this as authentic as possible – so that it’s relevant and helpful for learning.
​
Here are a few details that I found most interesting when building this –

OPERABLE OS&Y VALVES

THE MOST-COMMON QUESTION
One of the most-common questions I get is ‘what software did you use for this?’ Unfortunately, there is no magic software to bring this to life. This simulation alone has nearly 6,000 lines of HTML code to operate the 1,900 dynamic elements to bring this all to life. Many hours, creative hacks, and testing and retesting hydraulic loops until all the different scenarios balanced and responded correctly.

The feedback on it has been incredible, and I’m very excited to put more into researching and developing this side of what we do.

Will we build on these scenarios? Absolutely.

Will we be building new ones, with different types of systems? Absolutely.

Is it going to take another 1,200 hours to bring more of these to life? Absolutely.

That said, I think the usefulness of these for learners who don’t get out to the field, don’t travel to see the labs, or aren’t even allowed to operate the equipment (I’m looking at my former self for this one) – is palpable. This could be a great thing for our industry.
 
EDUCATION PROVIDERS
If you’re an educational institution with students who could benefit from this – please get in touch with us. We spoke with several universities at the Expo, and I think this (alongside the rest of MeyerFire University) could be a major boon for undergraduate students.
 
MANUFACTURERS
Same with manufacturers who may want to help develop ultra-realistic systems for better learning; please get in touch with us. There could be opportunities to build things for you that could help learners, your own staff, and your own customers in parallel.
 
THANK YOU
There has been a ton of work to make this happen over the last year. Other than a few people, much of it was under a rock until we knew that we could pull it off.

Thanks to those who have shared challenges, brainstormed with us, given feedback, and continue to support what we do. The better we can serve you – the better professionals in our industry will be able to operate.

Hope you have a great Fourth for those in the US (or Canada day if you’re our friends up north) – and have a great rest of your week!

​- Joe

Much of the MeyerFire.com concept started as a simple website around P.E. Exam preparation – that is – helpful articles, resources, and a book to help us all pass the Fire Protection Principles & Practice of Engineering Exam (P.E. Exam).

We still support that effort today, now about nine years later.

We have a book (the PE Prep Guide, now in it’s 8th Edition) and the PE Prep Series (20 weeks of online practice questions).

I’m very excited to announce today that we’re upgrading that experience in a very big way in incorporating and upgrading our PE Prep Series into a complete exam prep experience inside MeyerFire University.

WHY ADD PE PREP TO MEYERFIRE UNIVERSITY?
Everything for the PE Prep space has simply been listening to you. I personally was very frustrated with the lack of quantity of materials when I took the Fire Protection P.E. Exam in 2014, and the following year sold maybe a dozen copies of a formula sheet I put together to help organize and clarify different formulas.

Well, in listening to those who used it – the next year we added 100 questions and wrapped the formulas into the first edition of the PE Prep Guide (2016).

That book was rough! Very rough. We had something like 20 to 30 different errata updates all based on questions and feedback about the book.