|
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.
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 .
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
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. |
ALL-ACCESSSUBSCRIBESubscribe and learn something new each day:
COMMUNITYTop Oct '25 Contributors
YOUR POSTPE EXAMGet 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
FILTERS
All
ARCHIVES
November 2025
PE PREP SERIES |
RSS Feed
