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
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • JOB OPENINGS
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT
Picture

Use Many (8) Water Storage Tanks in Lieu of One?

12/23/2024

17 Comments

 
I work for a local fire department that does plan reviews for fire protection systems. We are reviewing a project that requires 40,000 gallons of stored water. They are proposing using multiple fire water tanks and eight 5,000-gallon tanks.

While NFPA
does not restrict the use of multiple tanks, I would like to see fewer tanks than eight. I am more inclined to allow two separate tanks at the most.

However, I wanted to see what others thought and if there was a standard understanding or practice to number or size of tanks to the total needed water demand. Thanks for any help.


Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
17 Comments
Glenn Berger
12/23/2024 08:07:01 am

The use of 8 tanks is definitely unique. Will need more project information to understand this design solution. Most of my projects will utilize a single tank when required. Double tanks when the water supply is extremely unreliable or when dealing with significant hazards.

Reply
Anthony
12/23/2024 08:08:41 am

This is an off choice but I don't think its "wrong" I just wouldn't do it this way.


Cons:
Way more failure points like 8x as many.
Higher costs in maintenance, there will 8x as many alarms and heaters to care about.
higher initial instillation costs with the items above and more concreate for the tank pads.
Could be a lot more heat trace?
More pipe if these are interconnectd


pros:
Might look cool?
Redundancy is always nice.
could be some unknown costs savings?

Reply
JI
12/23/2024 08:11:33 am

I don't see any issues with this arrangement. As long as proper arrangement of check valves, float valves, and any other arrangements required to ensure smooth operation are met I would not have issues. I assume this contractor would be using this arrangement to either save money, save time of building a custom tank, or to be able to have the tank arrangement be built in a tight area.

Reply
J
12/23/2024 08:19:34 am

While NFPA does not restrict the use of multiple tanks, I would like to see fewer tanks than eight.


Please remember as a AHJ you may not like something but if it complies with the code(s) then you should approve the plan. This way you do not get into any legal troubles.

Reply
J.H.
12/23/2024 08:40:11 am

NFPA 1142:4.1.4 The AHJ shall be permitted to specify how the water supplies required in this document are provided, giving consideration to local conditions and need.

Reply
J.H.
12/23/2024 08:20:01 am

Consult with operations, since the tanks are for them to use.
Is the large number to have them distributed throughout a large lot?
It only takes about 4-5 minutes to empty a 5,000 gallon tank, and then the crew has to restage at the next tank for another 5 minutes? No thank you. 9/10 there is no way this is getting approved.

Reply
Chad
12/23/2024 08:22:23 am

Maybe you should propose that the operation and maintenance schedule will be adhere to strictly for every single component, and you will be there to ensure that it gets done?

Unless this is some unique arrangement that doesn’t have a lot of floats and other equipment they’re going to quickly do the number that the operations cost is gonna greatly outweigh whatever they are trying to cheap on on, perhaps

Reply
Jimmy
12/23/2024 08:50:45 am

8 Tank installed correctly can be within code.
Cost of ITM (inspection testing maintenance) is well X8

If the owner can get the tanks at no cost or reduced cost may be the reason for the request,...... but ITM X8 needs to be addressed.

If allowed, I would have them manifolded.
They would fill equally and drain equally,....

Sounds like the tanks are free to low cost for the request.

Reply
J.H.
12/23/2024 09:21:43 am

A manifold situation would be fine, as long as the total refill time is within the maximum 8 hrs per NFPA 22:4.2.1.4.

Reply
José Figueroa
12/23/2024 09:49:23 am

It sounds like you have a very unique arrangement, and I appreciate the potential complexities involved. Could you please provide a schematic of the tanks? Specifically, I’m interested to know if they are gravity-fed or above ground, and how they are connected to the fire pump. Are they utilizing principles like Archimedes' or communicating vessels? It would be great to understand whether they are working in parallel or in series, and the configuration, such as one tank positioned above another.

Additionally, while I recognize the engineering challenges involved, could we also explore a comparison of the costs for this arrangement versus using a single suction tank and fire pump as outlined in NFPA 13? Thank you!

Reply
Jack G
12/23/2024 10:35:36 am

The only thing i can think of for 8 tanks is that they are being set up inside a heated space? Otherwise the costs to heat and maintain would be astronomical.
Set up would like " building a watch " to get it to work. A lot of " dead "water with 8 tanks so the amount of water in the tanks will be more than the 40 k if that was the amount needed for the duration.
Would a pressure tank ( half in the ground urethane insulation over) no pump ( air compressor ) be more economical?
Hard to say. I installed one of those 50 years ago at a nursing home facility in Dover Delaware.
Still working.
Also had a gc ( new facility ) build a tank in the foundation of a stair tower with a pumproom in the stair. Was a cool set up.
8 tanks are too many in my opinion even though allowed.

Reply
Jose Figueroa
12/23/2024 10:48:12 am

Jack, I greatly appreciate your insightful observations about the dead water and heating issues. Your points are extremely helpful. Thank you!

Reply
Jesse
12/23/2024 01:22:13 pm

I've was on the AHJ side for a long time. The issue is, the arrangement is not disallowed by code. So, you don;t have a legitimate code reason to reject the submittal.

Reply
J.H.
12/23/2024 01:44:29 pm

It is the AHJ's responsibility to reject the submittal if the sum of the parts doesn't meet minimum performance objectives. If they are using tanks, they are already in an alternative water supply situation and they must demonstrate that their arrangement will meet fire department access and water supply requirements, as well as NFPA 22 and NFPA 1142 criteria.

Reply
Jon link
12/23/2024 04:36:05 pm

I thonk the reason they're proposing a 5000 gallon tank is due to product availability

Reply
Mark Harris
12/29/2024 05:38:59 pm

Had a situation once where owner installed three smaller diameter manifolded tanks sized to meet the requirements. As JL noted it was due to tight spaces and also they were originally planning on a city supply that did not materialize so Jon's note about availability also came into play. Owner did it so no idea on cost. Was in AZ desert near Mexican border so freezing was not an issue. Agree with comments that should be acceptable but may not be the best life of system total cost solution.

Maybe it has changed but NFPA 409 for aircraft hangers used to require water supply from two tanks to still have protection if a tank was out of service. Had unique pump verbage as well. Have also seen pump house between two tanks at an oilseed extraction plant. Eight pumps (four from each tank) to a large header down the center.

Several of the pumps were diesel and first system trip (multiple deluge systems) realized nobody had looked at the combined fresh air intake requirements for the diesel engines and needed to put larger ventilation in. Original ventilation was ok for single pump (and during a single pump flow test) but inadequate when multiple pumps were running.

Reply
Ricardo Gonzales Jr
12/30/2024 08:37:10 am

As a former AHJ, does the proposed solution violate code? Feelings can't be defended in court. Unfortunately, I get a lot of AHJs using their feelings instead of facts or the code to justify their rejection of a design. Walking that line can be tough, but always look at it from a "I need to defend this decision from a legal viewpoint". Being on the stand is an extremely stressful situation.

As a few above have stated, what's the situation and cost to use 8 tanks instead of a single 50k gallon tank. It would be interesting to see.

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 June '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 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

    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
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • JOB OPENINGS
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT