MeyerFire
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • THE TOOLKIT
    • SUBMIT AN IDEA
    • BACKFLOW DATABASE*
    • CLEAN AGENT ESTIMATOR*
    • CLOUD CEILING CALCULATOR
    • DOMESTIC DEMAND*
    • FIRE FLOW CALCULATOR*
    • FIRE PUMP ANALYZER*
    • FIRE PUMP DATABASE*
    • FRICTION LOSS CALCULATOR
    • HANGER SPACER*
    • IBC TRANSLATOR*
    • K-FACTOR SELECTOR*
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('19 ONLY)
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('99-'22)*
    • LIQUIDS ANALYZER*
    • OBSTRUCTION CALCULATOR
    • OBSTRUCTIONS AGAINST WALL*
    • PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNTS
    • QUICK RESPONSE AREA REDUCTION
    • REMOTE AREA ANALYZER*
    • SPRINKLER DATABASE*
    • SPRINKLER FLOW*
    • SYSTEM ESTIMATOR*
    • TEST & DRAIN CALCULATOR
    • THRUST BLOCK CALCULATOR
    • TRAPEZE CALCULATOR
    • UNIT CONVERTER
    • VOLUME & COMPRESSOR CALCULATOR
    • WATER STORAGE*
    • WATER SUPPLY (US)
    • WATER SUPPLY (METRIC)
  • UNIVERSITY
    • JOIN
    • CATALOG
    • CONTENT LIBRARY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE Prep Series
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT
Picture

Location of "0" Elevation Matter in Hydr. Calc?

8/25/2021

9 Comments

 
I am reviewing a parking garage that is 5-stories in height fully equipped with an NFPA 13 sprinkler system.

The calculations provided for floors 4 and 5 indicate an elevation of 0 at the 3rd floor riser, with the elevations going in the negative values back to the hydrant.

Floor 3 calculations indicate an elevation of 0 at the Floor 2 riser. Floor 2 and 1 calculations show an elevation of 0 at the hydrant where the flow test was conducted.

Does the location of the "0" elevation affect the calculations demand, if the total change in elevation is still accounted for?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
9 Comments
Alex
8/25/2021 07:12:56 am

Hi Anonymous,

From my experience with the software, no, the negative elevation should not matter as long as your source elevation is properly adjusted as well. For instance, if you incoming water service and or fire hydrant are located on a floor with a ‘negative’ elevation, makes sure your elevation for the service matches. That way when the calc is looking for the elevation from the source to your floor, the difference between the two will be the same.

Note: If you are calc’ing via Revit, cut a section and confirm your floor elevations. The architect or who created the local model may have the floor elevations set up incorrectly.

Hope this helps,
Alex

Reply
Dan Wilder
8/25/2021 08:17:28 am

This is common when using XREF's with AutoSPRINK (I can't speak to the other design programs). The designer draws each floor at an elevation as if you were standing on the floor without regard to if the floor is +16' or +2160' above the arbitrary (to us) 0 elevation of the project.

My Casino drawing days had our BIM models elevated based on mean sea level (floors were +2100 to +2700 elevations) which made for a fun coordination effort when the BIM/VDC coordinator started the meeting asking if the pipes at 2194-5½ could be raised to 2195-8½....lots of taped cheat sheets to the sides of monitors.

As long as the vertical elevation is accounted for between the source, piping network, and flowing sprinklers, the elevation loss will be correct

Reply
Alex
8/25/2021 08:24:26 am

AutoSPRINK works awesome with CAD when everything is finally modeled currently.... until then, URG! I can picture that monitor and sticky notes now.

Reply
Glenn S Berger
8/25/2021 08:31:44 am

"0" being at the midpoint is typically down when this is the main discharge point of the elevator/building.

If I was reviewing the plans for approval, I would probably reject the set if there is a question concerning sprinkler system elevation versus the known supply system data source. I will do this this to be cognizant of any missing pipe segments and fittings required in the system.

If I could be convinced that all information was properly documented in a BIM environment that could alter my thinking.

Reply
Steven H.
8/25/2021 08:32:44 am

Alex is correct - the software will only look at changes in elevation, so you could potentially add or subtract any arbitrary amount from all of your elevations and still come up with the same answer.

In addition, the software should only care about the elevations at nodes for water sources (water supply and pump inlet/outlet) and discharge nodes (sprinklers, hoses, etc.). The elevations at your other nodes should, in theory, not have any impact on the results of your calculations (except for BOR to get an accurate bottom of riser result). This is because gravity is a conservative force, meaning any potential energy you lose by increasing elevation, is regained fully when you come back down.

You can try this out by adjusting some of your nodes in the calculation (not a source or discharge node) and putting any arbitrary value and checking to make sure your results stay the same. Of course it is good practice to put in actual elevations of your nodes--particularly to not confuse your plans reviewer--but it is convenient to be able to ignore node elevations when you are just doing a quick proof calc or something similar.

Reply
Alex
8/25/2021 09:19:26 am

You just need to be careful with gridded systems where the entire piping network is being used during the calculations.

Reply
Casey Milhorn
8/25/2021 08:38:05 am

Alex and Dan pretty much nailed it. I like to think there are three types of elevations in our calcs. The ones that have a critical outcome on the calc. The ones that have some bearing on the calc, but typically don't affect it too much. The last ones don't affect the calc at all. The critical elevations are the nodes for your water supply (source point) and then the driving (hydraulically most demanding) sprinkler. The second type of nodes are ones that do affect the calc, but not in a major way. Nodes that are in your actual calc area can have some minor affects on the calculation, but usually don't affect the calc in a major way. The elevation of the non-driving (but flowing) heads will affect how much delta flow you will see at those heads for example which can increase or decrease the total demand of the system. The last type of node are ones that don't matter at all when it comes to elevation, which are the rest of the nodes. For example, if your test node is at 0 feet and then your underground pipe coming into the building is -8', but then your driving head is at +10', you are still only going to net a 4.33 psi loss due to elevation. The fact that the underground pipe is -8' has no affect on the calc, other than the total footage of pipe. I always tell my new designers that you could have a supply main that goes up to the moon and back down to your building and it would not affect the calc as far as elevation goes. As a plan reviewer, the first thing I would look at is driving head elevation and source point elevation. That will have the biggest affect on the calc and can be a major screw up. 2nd is to check that pipe sizing on drawings matches calcs, and 3rd is to check and see if sprinkler head k factors match from drawings to calcs. If you don't look at anything else, at least check those three things. That is typically where the easiest mistakes are made AND the ones that have the most impact.

Reply
Jesse
8/25/2021 09:20:57 am

Its all relative to the supply node.

Assuming all 5 levels are above grade, the supply node would be below grade obviously. If the designer had benchmark elevation set wrong when the design was laid in, it could have shown 3rd level at 0. Its not a calculation problem if all the hydraulic nodes above and below are +/- adequately elevated relative to the 0 elevation.

If they aren't, you might have some problems.

Reply
John G
8/25/2021 09:57:31 am

I m not getting something.
If you start at the top, with ZERO, then go negative— your calculations will/ should show a gain in psi as you are loosing elevation. ( and not a loss due to elevation gain ).
So you are working with a fixed , negative, starting pressure. No accuracy.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Picture
    Why Sponsor?

    ALL-ACCESS

    Picture
    GET ALL OUR TOOLS

    SUBSCRIBE

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

    COMMUNITY

    Top ​April 2023 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
    A117.1
    ABA
    ADA
    ASCE 7
    ASME A17.1
    ASTM E1354
    Daily Discussion
    Design Documents
    EN 12845
    Explosion Protection & Prevention
    Fire Detection And Alarm Systems
    Fire Dynamics
    Flammable & Combustible LIquids
    FM Global
    Human Behavior
    IBC
    ICC-500
    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 30B
    NFPA 33
    NFPA 400
    NFPA 409
    NFPA 415
    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 855
    NFPA 90A
    NFPA 92
    NFPA 96
    NICET
    OBC
    Passive Building Systems
    PE Prep Guide
    PE Prep Series
    PE Sample Problems
    Poll
    Smoke Management
    Special Hazard Systems
    UFC 3 600 01
    UFC 3-600-01
    UFC 4-021-01
    UPC
    Updates
    Water Based Fire Suppression
    Weekly Exams


    ARCHIVES

    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

    Fire Protection PE Exam Prep
    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 © 2023 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
  • THE TOOLKIT
    • SUBMIT AN IDEA
    • BACKFLOW DATABASE*
    • CLEAN AGENT ESTIMATOR*
    • CLOUD CEILING CALCULATOR
    • DOMESTIC DEMAND*
    • FIRE FLOW CALCULATOR*
    • FIRE PUMP ANALYZER*
    • FIRE PUMP DATABASE*
    • FRICTION LOSS CALCULATOR
    • HANGER SPACER*
    • IBC TRANSLATOR*
    • K-FACTOR SELECTOR*
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('19 ONLY)
    • NFPA 13 EDITION TRANSLATOR ('99-'22)*
    • LIQUIDS ANALYZER*
    • OBSTRUCTION CALCULATOR
    • OBSTRUCTIONS AGAINST WALL*
    • PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNTS
    • QUICK RESPONSE AREA REDUCTION
    • REMOTE AREA ANALYZER*
    • SPRINKLER DATABASE*
    • SPRINKLER FLOW*
    • SYSTEM ESTIMATOR*
    • TEST & DRAIN CALCULATOR
    • THRUST BLOCK CALCULATOR
    • TRAPEZE CALCULATOR
    • UNIT CONVERTER
    • VOLUME & COMPRESSOR CALCULATOR
    • WATER STORAGE*
    • WATER SUPPLY (US)
    • WATER SUPPLY (METRIC)
  • UNIVERSITY
    • JOIN
    • CATALOG
    • CONTENT LIBRARY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE Prep Series
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT