MeyerFire
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • TOOLKIT
    • ALL TOOLS
    • BUY THE TOOLKIT
  • UNIVERSITY
    • ALL COURSES
    • JOIN THE UNIVERSITY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE PREP SERIES
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
    • TOOLKIT-ONLY LOGIN
    • UNIVERSITY LOGIN
  • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • JOB OPENINGS
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT
Picture

How to Address Fire Pump Surge/Water Hammer?

10/1/2025

6 Comments

 
TL;DR:
How can surge/water hammer forces be managed in very tall high-rise fire protection system using a single high-pressure pump (~365 psi) without exceeding equipment ratings or NFPA limits?

Question:
Trying to pre-plan in my mind for some upcoming pretty tall highrises where design teams would like to utilize 1 pump in lieu of a high/low multi-pump set up.

I'm coming up with a couple of challenges. For the sake of the problem lets assume the static pressure at the fire pump discharge flange is 365 psi. I'm concerned that fire pump starting methods might create shockwaves/water hammer in high-pressure standpipes whether it be at the start of the pump like across-the-line or end of the curve spike like a wye-delta closed might see.

How concerning is creating surge forces that exceed coupling/PRV valve/Pressure Relief Valve listed ratings?

First reaction for many like me has always been to utilize soft-start but electrically with generators soft-start has a much higher load that has to be accounted for in the generator sizing because of the electrical engineers have to size them as across-the-line because of the bypass & 600% FLA.

Maybe they just have to suffer on their design for FPs to be what it needs to be, but am trying to be accommodating where it makes sense.

Is the general method to rely on a main relief valve in these high-pressure systems?

NFPA 14 limits us to 400 psi but I'm not finding pressure relief valves that are listed high enough for the static pressure of the system i.e. cal-val at 300 psi, Victaulic at 350 psi.

Is anyone utilizing anything like an Amtrol Surge-Trol Tank type products?

Maybe VFD controllers to flatten/lower the static pressure?

Some additional concerns in my mind are PRV hose valves have a 400 psi rated value and some couplings for example Victaulic might be rated at 365 psi. I know there are higher rated couplings on the market, like 500 psi, but if my static pressure on the system is 365 psi, I could see a surge force exceeding the rated values (zero math to support that claim).

I'm struggling to quantify the possible surge force values in the design phase and how to handle that. Reading SFPE Handbook of Fire Protection Engineering 5th edition Water Hammer section pg 1407, it's focused mostly on the closing of valves, and still wrapping my head around if those equations can be applicable/same for pump starting forces.

Thanks in advance.

Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
6 Comments
Anthony
10/1/2025 08:29:26 am

In my experience its not a substantial concern in any system I've designed and built before. I have seen it cause an issue exactly one time in ~12 years. A slight rattle in the FDC line when the pump was cycled. Please remember most sprinkler systems are not 100% full of water. most of the beachlines carry significant air. That air acts as a spring and absorbs most surges and locks them in with their check valves.

For a practical solution for surge pressures try perhaps a water hammer arrestor. I've never used one on a pump system but you can try. A retard chamber could do the same thing.


With a single pump I would set up multiple PRV zones, I think cal-val makes prvs up to 500 psi, you'll have to call a rep. again I think they do not 100%

VFD will only knock off the differential from churn to rated ~ 25% of total head, so could be useful but at $125K(ish) for the VFD I think you're better off with the 2nd pump. With some creative valving you can also use the pumps as back ups so you don't loose the whole building at any one time when doing maintenance.

Reply
Pete D.
10/1/2025 09:30:01 am

PRVs on the floor control assemblies and standpipe hose valves until you reach an elevation at which the gravitational pressure gradient reduces the pressure to the appropriate limits. Remember that drain lines must be sized to accommodate full forward flow of PRVs annually. As far as the standpipe movement, you should provide seismic bracing regardless of whether you're in a seismic zone. Most high rises are commercial multistory office, Group B. Consider the Fire Flow requirement to be the standpipe demand. Depending on the # stairs, and whether fully sprinklered, I think you're looking at max 1000gpm or 1250gpm. When considering the forces at elbows etc. use this flow rate at the pressure corresponding to where the brace is being applied (discharge - 0.433x deltaH).

Reply
Jack G
10/1/2025 09:40:18 am

I ve always used Young Engineering for my bladder tanks, surge tanks and surge arrestors. They are very heavy duty and the bladder lasts longer in my opinion .
Price wise they are more expensive but don’t look like it’s made like a “ retardant chamber” like other brands.
Pressures are available to 500 psi. That sounds like your range.

Reply
Jack G
10/1/2025 09:44:59 am

I ve actually gone in to repair damage where pump surges have blown hose valves off the top of standpipes and grooved caps and elbows. It s not fun to be in that situation. RFI and see if engineers will buy one for safeties sake. If not it’s still a good idea.

Reply
Derrick S. link
10/1/2025 05:49:48 pm

If the discharge side of the pump is pressurized with a jockey pump per NFPA 20, that should eliminate the water hammer issue. Air in the piping will cause the water hammer to worsen, not act as a cushion (air in the lines=greater water hammer). I ran into this issue recently on a pump without a jockey pump as it was started upon a signal and not loss of pressure. Pressurizing the discharge line fixed the hammer. As for the pressure ratings, I can't help.

Reply
L. Scot
10/6/2025 12:22:24 pm

An example where I've seen this be a concern, not our project but a dry system was tripped at a drain somewhere mid-height of high-rise. Jockey Pump didn't keep up, first fire pump kicked on, cap blew at the top of a standpipe, 2nd fire pump kicked on. I'm going to assume there was air pockets in the system. Grooved Coupling rated pressures were only slightly higher than the static pressure of the system supplied by the jockey pump.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    SUBMIT A QUESTION
    Picture
    Why Sponsor?

    ALL-ACCESS

    Picture
    GET ALL OUR TOOLS

    SUBSCRIBE

    Subscribe and learn something new each day:
    I'm Interested In:

    COMMUNITY

    Top Oct '25 Contributors
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    SEE LEADERBOARD

    YOUR POST

    SUBMIT A QUESTION

    PE EXAM

    Get 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
    SIGN ME UP!

    FILTERS

    All
    A1171
    ABA
    ADA
    ASCE 7
    ASME A17.1
    ASTM E1354
    Blog Thread
    Daily Discussion
    Design-documents
    EN 12259-1
    EN 12845
    Explosion Protection
    Explosion-protection-prevention
    Fire Detection And Alarm Systems
    Fire Dynamics
    Flammable And Combustible Liquids
    Flammable-combustible-liquids
    FM Global
    Human-behavior
    IBC
    ICC 500
    IEBC
    IFC
    IMC
    IPC
    IRC
    ISO
    Means Of Egress
    NBC
    NFPA 1
    NFPA 10
    NFPA 101
    NFPA 11
    NFPA 110
    NFPA 1142
    NFPA 1221
    NFPA 13
    NFPA 13D
    NFPA 13R
    NFPA 14
    NFPA 15
    NFPA 16
    NFPA 17A
    NFPA 20
    NFPA 2001
    NFPA 214
    NFPA 22
    NFPA 220
    NFPA 24
    NFPA 241
    NFPA 25
    NFPA 291
    NFPA 30
    NFPA 307
    NFPA 30B
    NFPA 31
    NFPA 33
    NFPA 37
    NFPA 400
    Nfpa-409
    Nfpa-415
    Nfpa-45
    Nfpa-495
    NFPA 497
    NFPA 5000
    NFPA 502
    NFPA 54
    NFPA 55
    NFPA 654
    NFPA 68
    NFPA 70
    NFPA 701
    NFPA 72
    NFPA 75
    NFPA 770
    NFPA 82
    NFPA 850
    NFPA 855
    NFPA 90A
    NFPA 92
    NFPA 96
    NICET
    OBC
    OSHA
    Passive Building Systems
    PE Prep Guide
    PE Prep Series
    PE Sample Problems
    Poll
    Smoke Management
    Special Hazard Systems
    UFC 3-600-01
    UFC 4-021-01
    UFC 4-211-01
    UPC
    Updates
    Water Based Fire Suppression
    Weekly Exams


    ARCHIVES

    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016


    PE PREP SERIES

    SEE LEADERBOARD

    RSS Feed

Picture
​Home
Our Cause
The Blog
The Forum
PE Exam Prep
The Toolkit

MeyerFire University
​Pricing
Login
​Support
Contact Us
Picture

MeyerFire.com is a startup community built to help fire protection professionals shine.
Our goal is to improve fire protection practices worldwide. We promote the industry by creating helpful tools and resources, and by bringing together industry professionals to share their expertise.

​MeyerFire, LLC is a NICET Recognized Training Provider and International Code Council Preferred Education Provider.

All text, images, and media ​Copyright © 2016-2025 MeyerFire, LLC

We respect your privacy and personal data. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. 
The views, opinions, and information found on this site represent solely the author and do not represent the opinions of any other party, nor does the presented material assume responsibility for its use. Fire protection and life safety systems constitute a critical component for public health and safety and you should consult with a licensed professional for proper design and code adherence.

Discussions are solely for the purpose of peer review and the exchange of ideas. All comments are reviewed. Comments which do not contribute, are not relevant, are spam, or are disrespectful in nature may be removed. Information presented and opinions expressed should not be relied upon as a replacement for consulting services. Some (not all) outbound links on this website, such as Amazon links, are affiliate-based where we receive a small commission for orders placed elsewhere.

  • Blog
  • Forum
  • TOOLKIT
    • ALL TOOLS
    • BUY THE TOOLKIT
  • UNIVERSITY
    • ALL COURSES
    • JOIN THE UNIVERSITY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE PREP SERIES
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
    • TOOLKIT-ONLY LOGIN
    • UNIVERSITY LOGIN
  • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • JOB OPENINGS
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT