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
    • About
    • Catalog
    • CONTENT LIBRARY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE Prep Series
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • THE CAUSE
    • ABOUT US
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT
Picture

Use Main Drain Test for Base of Riser Calculation?

2/25/2021

16 Comments

 
Is there a method to use a main drain test to calculate the hydraulic curve at the riser itself?

I haven't done it myself, but using a static pressure at the riser, with a residual pressure at the riser, and then to gather the flow a pitot reading on the main drain discharge to measure how much flow?

If the flow discharge outside was greater than the demand of the system, conceivably a hydraulic calculation could be made with the riser as the source point, and with more accuracy than a hydrant flow test somewhere near the site.

Obviously if a backflow test header or hose valve were supplied, a higher flow could be obtained with a better curve.

I heard this mentioned recently so it's just theory to me, but for small remodels having a setup like this could be far simpler (and potentially more accurate) to know the available water supply at the system.

​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
16 Comments
Dan Wilder
2/25/2021 08:54:25 am

While technically accurate to create a "micro" water supply curve (assuming the discharge pipe can be routed into a known orifice & pitot readings are accurate), it does not create an accurate water supply for the building, just a baseline to compare future results to. Gauge placement becomes very important for the static/residual readings (think performing a hydrant static/residual/flow test from a single hydrant....it can be done but the numbers are skewed). Outside hose also is a question.

You may exceed the water demand requirements of the system, but I would question if your residual pressure would still be acceptable. Once graphed out, that steep of a curve with added hose streams would quickly exceed the supply curve.

However, I have used existing hydraulic placards for small, lesser hazard TI's when I was unable to perform a flow test outside the building without an issue (AHJ preapproval was requested).

Reply
OP
2/25/2021 08:57:56 am

Dan - agreed on all points.

I haven't used placards myself, but typically those demands are for a specific design flow and design pressure... the placards don't typically give a static pressure or flow test information.

Do you just assume no increase on static and design below that "line" to be conservative?

I don't run into this situation often (typically just larger new work), but appreciate the insight.

Reply
Dan Wilder
2/25/2021 09:28:17 am

I'll take the current static from the system (bleed off the pressure above the check valve or past the backflow so I don't get an artificially high static), then use the residual required flow & pressure. It is super conservative as those numbers are from a demand calc (not an actual supply test) but again, I've only used it for lesser hazard additions as I can prove the new area demand is less than the existing area demand requirements.

I have not applied a safety factor to those calculations because the numbers being used (assumed) are already below the water supply + safety factor. I also do not "add" in any shown safety factor on the plate...again, super conservative.

Jesse
2/25/2021 09:08:49 am

Agree with Dan's comments about it really just being a benchmark for future comparative analysis. We need to be accurate in our calculations, and that accuracy begins with the flow test we use as the basis of design. I mandate all of our field staff to strictly adhere to NFPA 291 Ch. 4 when obtaining flow values for our design calcs.

Reply
Dennis R.
2/25/2021 10:44:01 am

Agreed! Accuracy is of the utmost importance when performing a flow test. The results form the basis of the whole calculation process!

Reply
Dennis R.
2/25/2021 09:21:16 am

I was interested to see the replies to this comment. I read the old GAPS Guideline on this very thing. Although I can't find it online, I did save a copy to my computer. It makes a lot of sense, but obviously isn't within the intent of NFPA13.

Also, curious how you would extrapolate the data from a placard for calculations?

Reply
Matt
2/25/2021 10:20:08 am

Typically I would use the Residual flow and pressure from the base of riser placard, and use the reading of the city pressure gauge for my static pressure. As mentioned before, this is NOT an accurate model of the water supply, but depending on the age of the system (keeping in mind that water supplies can change drastically over time) this can provide reasonable constraints to use when modeling changes/modifications in an existing system.

Reply
Jeff link
2/25/2021 10:42:56 am

Please keep in mind that not all Hydraulic Placards are
installed or populated with data from the installing company.

They may be calculated by an inspection company who has NO
idea what the water supply is capable of providing -
(It is a "demand calc")

Reply
jay richardson
2/25/2021 10:48:48 am

Yes you can do this to get a relatively accurate available water supply at the BOR, but you don't know the coefficient of discharge to use for the main drain. I would connect a hose to the main drain pipe and use a hose monster nozzle (known Cd) to determine the flow.
Besides the main drain, NFPA 13 requires a means to forward flow test the backflow preventer and suggests a bypass pipe with control valve around the FDC check valve to accomplish this. In this case you can connect a length of hose to the FDC and use the hose monster.
The outside hose allowance is added at the connection to the city main or hydrant, which will be minimum 6 to 8 inch pipe, and 100-250gpm added at this point will have minimal effect on the residual pressure at BOR. A greater effect on the residual pressure will be the daily and seasonal fluctuations that usually aren't accounted for in the flow test results.
If the General Information Sign is installed as required by NFPA 13, that has the original flow test and main drain test results on it. But if you're using the flow test to hydraulically calculate a system, NFPA 13 requires the flow test to have been performed in the last 12 months. The General Info sign main drain test data is best used to recognize a decrease in municipal water supply since the system was first installed, which is very common in my area where there has been extensive growth/construction over the last 30 years with no upgrades to the water supply.

Reply
Franck
2/25/2021 11:13:24 am

I like the conservative approach of Dan to have a rough idea on the possible available water supply on a system.
The only limitation is that you can use it to validate lesser demand calculations.
And hoping that the city water supply did not fluctuate in the meantime (and that the previous contractor did a good job, i.e. ensure that the existing water supply was above that demand point at the base of riser).
But if you have nothing, it is better than nothing.

Reply
Franck
2/25/2021 11:19:03 am

To come back to the initial question, this is not something I would do for a new system.

One of the main reason is the limited flow you will have through the main drain. This means that you will have a point with a huge uncertainty to plot on your Q1.85 graph. If your hydraulic demand has a much greater flow, you will definitely be in the grey area...

Remember that the size of the main drains are only:
- For riser main size up to 2 in.: 3/4 in.
- For riser main size from 2-1/2 in. to 3-1/2 in.: 1-1/4 in.
- For riser main size 4 in. and larger: 2 in.

This is far less that what you will flow from a hydrant.

Reply
Dennis Randolph
2/25/2021 11:32:54 am

Here is the paper I was referring to earlier, if anybody is interested. I couldn't find it online again, so I stuck it in Dropbox.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/13k51zc7lf2w2e5/AAAQCopjITeuHnGA7DHJw4Jya?dl=0

Reply
Jonathan Sullivan
2/26/2021 09:13:56 am

Thanks Dennis. Why do you think the recommendation is that the gauge must be tapped into the riser rather than the hose?

Reply
Dennis Randolph
2/26/2021 09:40:17 am

I would think it is the same principal as NFPA13 (213 Ed.) A.8.16.2.4 in that you would not record a true residual reading if the gauge is on the drain.

Also, I had seen this paper and thought it was an interesting conversation point. I would never design a system using data collected this way.

James Richardson
2/26/2021 11:44:47 am

Thanks for that paper.
Very interesting!

Reply
James Richardson
2/26/2021 10:49:43 am

I would consider this method to be primarily a starting point used when questioning if the incoming water can meet the numbers on the placard.
On the other hand it is very common to use the data from the annual pump test report to run calcs for tenant improvements, modifications, or change in hazard.

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 ​Jan 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 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 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
    Updates
    Water Based Fire Suppression
    Weekly Exams


    ARCHIVES

    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 an International Code Council Preferred Education Provider.

All text, images, and media ​Copyright © 2022 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
    • About
    • Catalog
    • CONTENT LIBRARY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE Prep Series
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • THE CAUSE
    • ABOUT US
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT