Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

hydrant flows

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • amfm
    replied
    play, blackb16 or is it Larry?

    I would agree with you that there are many things on the fireground that we shouldn't compromise on; safety being one. But my job requires me to do the best that I can with the limited resources that have been provided by my supervisor and within the restrictions set by the taxpayers. NO LARRY I DON'T HAVE THREE PEOPLE TO DO FLOW TESTS. As strange as that may sound to you, there are actually communities that think that recreation is more important that fire protection. Then again you problably couldn't find a picture of me in a trade journal with my protective coat open and my helmet strap over the back of my leather either.

    "AWWA and NFPA say there is no reason to if you follow their standards. If not heck any thing goes I guess."

    Does this mean that you agree with everything that NFPA prints? Does this mean that you dissagree with Ismans book and that looped fire mains are more reliable and provide fewer outages when properly equipped with isolation valves? The fact of the matter is Larry, not every city particularly on the east has newer infrastructure. We have to deal with problems you only could dream about in your worst nightmares. Not every town is as new and as shiny as yours in Nevada.

    "So how do you determine the main size, needed flow, hydrant spacing, number of hydrants and growth in the system may I ask? What do you use for a standard?"

    I told you what I use to determine the necessary fire flow Larry. We use the ISO Grading Schedule. I thought that an all knowing and all powerful fire god like you would be familiar with that. I didn't and will not tell the water utility what the hydrant spacing, main size, number of hydrants or growth will be because of things such as Water Tarif Agreements that have been determined by the State Water Utility Commission and Local Land Development and Zoning Requirements dictate these things. I only provide the required fire flow. The developer and the water utility determine though their water agreement how to get that flow.

    "Then again NFPA, all the model codes and AWWA the topic of the discussion don't suggest that sized pipe in that application now do they? SO sue yo want to run silly sizes with more silly sizes knock yourself out, but the laws of the land and the standards all beg to differ with you."

    What I want is a new water system that I have more control over but that isn't likely to happen in my lifetime. The size pipe that I get is what the water company says will supply the amount that we provide in the letter to the water company. That figure is arrived at using a well known and established procedure. Sometimes this means putting in new larger sized mains, sometimes it means using whats already there. But what size pipe to use is NOT UP TO ME. I don't have the legal right to do that here.

    "What damage are you talking about? The 20 psi residual has nothing to do with your cavitating your pump or not, that would be the operators fault."

    Are you saying that pump cavitation can only be the result of operator error? There are times that these failures have been the result of improper attention by the operator, however I can think of several things that may cause this to occur, none of which the operator has much control over. The 20 psi provides for a margin of error to allow the pump operator to determine what is happening and shut down the pump.

    Four way valves gives you the ability to establish a water supply and also get additional water from that same hydrant without shuting the source off. Do you disagree? If you don't disagree then why go the the next hydrant that may be hundreds of feet further than the one already being used. Additional engines can be used to not only lay additional supply lines they can be used to increase the water supply in the first line. This may also maximize the use of the hydrant. LARRY, HOW IS THIS WRONG?

    "Are two pumpers at half their capacity efficient? I think not."

    But how about two pumpers operating at full capacity, and laying less hose? Guess you forgot about the poor guys that had to pick it up didn't ya, Larry. Is an engine only half as good when its on the hydrant?

    "The standards and law folks didn't waste all this paper so you could do your own thing and give bad advice to building owners,"

    I don't give advise to building owners. I enforce our code. This code is not the best and it's not the worst and it surely has many problems. But it is like any code. It is nothing more than a political document. They are written by politicians and voted upon by politicians. They can be changed by politicians. Everything is not just black and white Larry, and if you got everthing that you wanted, you'd still be employed by that magazine, with that wonderful picture of yourself with the open coat and helmet strap around the back.

    I'd love to spend more time with ya, but like my Daddy says, "Ya shouldn't argue with an idiot son. Others may not necessarily know who the idiot is."

    Just my two cents worth and that won't buy even one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    While NFPA and AWWA all suggest that more than one hydrant be used for flow testing, my experience, (practical) is that;
    1. Flow test data received by my office, for use in determining necessary flow and pressure data for sprinkler systems provides just one flow hydrant. This includes two of the largest water utilities in my state. Both are members of AWWA and NFPA. If the boys in the business don't follow the standard...?


    I guess that is why so many sprinkled buildings don't get their insurance break after a few years. Ask ISO they can list thousands of buildings built to a made up inaccurate number. Lets all do every thing half asked. I guess following the standards we like the way we like them is why so many guys die in buildings with their PASS devices off, or with pre-existing medical problems, or driving like idiots, or are in lousy health and suddenly die weekly.

    2. My experience with flow tests have been that I don't have the manpower or time to test more than one flow hydrant, and the information that I have received from flowing more than one has not produced a significant difference than flowing one hydrant. This difference has proven to be less than 5%. Therefore my experience (practical application) has proven more efficient and effective.

    Oh here we go again, ball park 5%, 15% etc. Last time 650% counted as 15%. You don't have three guys do do a hydrant test correctly??? Odds are it takes two to do it wrong.

    As far as looping dead end mains, there are good reasons to loop dead end mains.

    AWWA and NFPA say there is no reason to if you follow their standards. If not heck any thing goes I guess.

    Our water utilities sole purpose was to provide a potable water source. Fire flow was never considered. Four and six inch mains are common in our area, even in high flow, industrial areas.

    Maybe that is why you don't see any difference in a flow test. Don't use your no code system to give advice to others especially when it flys in the face of all the standards. You can't possibll draw down a 10, 12 or larger main with one hydrant. Source NFPA handbook. Why do allthe standards suggest using three and four hydrants on certain configurations of mains? Because that is what it takes to do the test corerectly.

    until they receive a letter from our office listing the water supply necessary for fire control. We use the ISO formulas to determine that flow rate.

    So how do you determine the main size, needed flow, hydrant spacing, number of hydrants and growth in the system may I ask? What do you use for a standard? You base the supply on a half asked single hydrant test???

    Looping mains not only provide more water based upon the same size main (a looped 6 inch will provide more water than a dead end 6 inch)

    Then again NFPA, all the model codes and AWWA the topic of the discussion don't suggest that sized pipe in that application now do they? SO sue yo want to run silly sizes with more silly sizes knock yourself out, but the laws of the land and the standards all beg to differ with you.


    20 psi is the pressure that has customarly been used both by ISFTA, NFPA and others to report since that is the recommended minimum pressure for fire apparatus use.

    Oh it is a "custom"??? For a reverse lay see UFC Apx III, ISO will credit 0 psi.

    [i]The 20 psi pressure is also what is used as a residual pressure in relay operations.

    5 psi is used by ISO for relays residential and commercial. 20 psi is a real waste with big or small hose. SO how much water is a 20 psi residual?


    The danger of taking the pressure below 20 psi is not in "pulling the hydrant out of the ground, or collapsing the main", but when a pump tries to pump more water that it is being provided by a supplied source than cavitation occurs. When this occurs damage is immediate and irreperable. The 20 psi residual provides for a safety factor if conditions change during a fire operation. This gives the pump operator time to react to the problem and adjust where necessary.

    What damage are you talking about? The 20 psi residual has nothing to do with your cavitating your pump or not, that would be the operators fault. So how much of a safety factor in real terms is 20 psi? How much time does it give the pump operator? You can have cavitation with a 500 psi hydrant. If you over pump the supply cavitation occurs.

    If a department uses any four-way valve at the hydrant in a forward lay, and if testing has been done and it has been determined that water may be available in the hydrant to flow the full fire flow amount from that one hydrant, wouldn't you want to get it all from that one hydrant?

    Most four way valves cannot pump the rating of the pumper and cost you at least 25 to 33% in a forward lay. Why not just lay a second line or a larger single line and get twice the flow without the relay at what 1/60th the cost???


    If the first in engine forward lays

    Are you sure you don't need 1/4 to 1/3 of the hydrant flow on the initial attack?

    I think thats a practical application, isn't it?

    Why not do the math, which was the purpose of this post in the first place, buy the right size hose and have each pumper supply itself? Are two pumpers at half their capacity efficient? I think not.

    Why then does size of hose matter in this evolution. I can lay dual five inch hose both forward and reverse if I need to from the first and second engine, and supply it from the same hydrant if necessary.

    So why all the chat about four ways, reverse lays, etc?

    [i]As far as flow testing a dead end main why don't you direct me to a publication that provides the correct way.

    ISO FIELD PROCEDURES MANUAL. Their source of course is AWWA.

    The way that I described it in my past posts have always proven to within a hundred gallons per minute in the past,

    Always, Yeah right. So how did you get your residual and always be right f you didn't test the TEST hydrant. Sounds like BS to me. Find a source thart will support you on this, good luck.

    Garbage in and garbage out. If you don't base what you do on a standard odds are you'll never be right. The standards and law folks didn't waste all this paper so you could do your own thing and give bad advice to building owners, but then again you've said over and over your not doing things right. So I guess we should take your advice with a grain of salt.

    [ 09-06-2001: Message edited by: blackb16 ]

    Leave a comment:


  • amfm
    replied
    Was out of town and wasn't able to check the site.

    I still believe that play and blackb16 may be the same person, however I'll play (no pun intended) along and respond.

    While NFPA and AWWA all suggest that more than one hydrant be used for flow testing, my experience, (practical) is that;
    1. Flow test data received by my office, for use in determining necessary flow and pressure data for sprinkler systems provides just one flow hydrant. This includes two of the largest water utilities in my state. Both are members of AWWA and NFPA. If the boys in the business don't follow the standard...?
    2. My experience with flow tests have been that I don't have the manpower or time to test more than one flow hydrant, and the information that I have received from flowing more than one has not produced a significant difference than flowing one hydrant. This difference has proven to be less than 5%. Therefore my experience (practical application) has proven more efficient and effective.

    As far as getting good information I can't qualify that because he wasn't specific enough about his operation and the water system to provide that answer. Just as you have alluded to in your responses. As far as if his application being more practical, again I can't answer that but not in my jurisdiction where forward and reverse lays are used frequently.

    As far as looping dead end mains, there are good reasons to loop dead end mains. In locations where small mains were installed years ago, because there was little or no contact or control over water supplies provided by the water companies in the past with the AHJ looping may provide much better supply than a dead end main of the same size. Our water utilities sole purpose was to provide a potable water source. Fire flow was never considered. Four and six inch mains are common in our area, even in high flow, industrial areas. We have been successful with one water utility in getting developers to make improvements to the water systems where they are creating the hazards and risks. This utility will not sign water agreements with a developer until they receive a letter from our office listing the water supply necessary for fire control. We use the ISO formulas to determine that flow rate. Do I live in a utopia? No, but our efforts to have these improvements made, have made the job of the fire companies much easier when the fire occurs, and not at the expense of the taxpayer.

    Additionally, while there is much development taking place in our little neck of the woods here, the development is from residential to commercial and business as well as industrial. I think that you would agree that these hazards generally require higher flows that residential developments. Looping mains not only provide more water based upon the same size main (a looped 6 inch will provide more water than a dead end 6 inch) with proper valving it provides a more reliable water source with fewer areas subject to outages if a failure occurs. See page 193, Pump Operators Handbook, by Warren Isman, Fire Engineering, 1984.

    The 20 psi figure provides as I said an extrapolation of what is available, at that time and date that the water system was tested. 20 psi is the pressure that has customarly been used both by ISFTA, NFPA and others to report since that is the recommended minimum pressure for fire apparatus use. See page 11-54, NFPA Fire Protection Handbook, 14th edition.

    The 20 psi pressure is also what is used as a residual pressure in relay operations. KISS is a valuable and proven theory. It has seemed to work for me in the past. I don't believe that I'll change that yet.

    The danger of taking the pressure below 20 psi is not in "pulling the hydrant out of the ground, or collapsing the main", but when a pump tries to pump more water that it is being provided by a supplied source than cavitation occurs. When this occurs damage is immediate and irreperable. The 20 psi residual provides for a safety factor if conditions change during a fire operation. This gives the pump operator time to react to the problem and adjust where necessary.

    If a department uses any four-way valve at the hydrant in a forward lay, and if testing has been done and it has been determined that water may be available in the hydrant to flow the full fire flow amount from that one hydrant, wouldn't you want to get it all from that one hydrant? I think so. If the first in engine forward lays using that four way valve, and the second positions to reverse lay if necessary to the same hydrant that the first layed from, then we only pick up the hose that was layed from the closest hydrant. Not hundreds of feet further than the first hydrant, thereby requiring less effort to pick up more hose than was necessary. I think thats a practical application, isn't it? Why then does size of hose matter in this evolution. I can lay dual five inch hose both forward and reverse if I need to from the first and second engine, and supply it from the same hydrant if necessary.

    As far as flow testing a dead end main why don't you direct me to a publication that provides the correct way. The way that I described it in my past posts have always proven to within a hundred gallons per minute in the past, for me. I am always willing to learn from others regardless of the demeaning way in which it is presented.

    Thanks Larry for the conversation.

    Leave a comment:


  • IJHumberson
    replied
    I don't want to "muddy the waters" (pun intended)with a bunch of technicalities, but I think it needs to be clearly pointed out that the purpose of doing a flow test of a hydrant is to obtain the hydraulic characteristic flow curve for that particular water main feeding that hydrant. Any pressure readings (static OR residual) are only considered to be accurate for that one point in time that the flow test is conducted. However, assuming no valves are opened or closed in the system, the flow curve for that water main should remain the same no matter what the pressures are. Most public utilities or water purveyors can provide you with their expected low pressures for a given area, based on their minimum water level supplying that area - with that information, you can adjust your flow curve to the low pressure and have a somewhat accurate idea of the minimum expected flows available from that hydrant.

    Clear as mud?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ray R
    replied
    Well, this has been quite an exchange of info.

    Lets delve into the 20 psi question. My understanding is that this allows enough water/pressure in the system for domestic /industrial needs. A good pump operator can drop to 10 psi or less and not cause any major problems.

    The old timers used to claim that if you pulled a vacuum in the water main, you would pull a hydrant out of the ground. I have never seen this happen and do not think it is possible unless there is prior damage to the hydrant.

    What I have witnessed over more years than I care to reveal is damage to old water mains due to collapse or breaks at joints or elbows.

    The second problem I have witnessed is the suction of water from homes/commercial buildings. Newer structures are supposed to have a backflow preventer (check valve) in the service line to prevent this from happening. Old services do not have them. This can lead to the collapse of hot water heaters when a suction is applied to them. They look like a crushed soda can.

    You can bet that the media will cover the damages caused more extensively than your firefighting operation no matter how well you did. The Fire Chief will probably need the one hundred tablet bottle of asprin if this happens.

    Stay Safe and check your water supplies.

    Leave a comment:


  • LT334
    replied
    Thanks mongo (and everyone else). That clears things up a bit. To answer your question, NO, no-one in my town is. (But im working on it)

    Leave a comment:


  • mongofire_99
    replied
    OK, I was going to stay out of this mess, but since my name was brought up...

    LT334

    If you put a pitot flow gauge on a 2 1/2 outlet and flow it, can you use the chart to convert this reading to gpm rating for that hydrant,

    Yes, you can convert to the gpm rating for the pitot'd pressure for that hydrant.

    Problems with just doing it that way that have been pointed out but may not be clear for various reasons:

    All you get is the flow pressure for that hydrant at that time of day under the current use of the water system at that specific point and time in history.

    The information you get from tapping an upstream hydrant for the static and residual is what's left in the system, and graphs or computer programs like FireHouse, Fire Programs, Crossfire and others can extrapolate that information out to what the hydrant will do when the pressure is less, specifically down to 20psi residual (which if I understand correctly is minimum for municiple water systems - anyone feel free to correct me if I am in error here). Some programs can take it to zero for you as well.

    Why wouldnt the flow at that specific pressure be good enough. Would it fluxuate enough to actually make much of a change?

    Depending on what's going on with your water system, it can. More trucks on the system, main closures, unforseen restrictions, etc...

    wHAT IF THE HYDRANT YOU ARE TESTING IS AT THE END OF THE WATER MAIN AND YOU HAVE NO DOWNSTEAM HYDRANT TO FLOW?

    Just flow that hydrant, get the static and residual off the next upstream one.

    play.

    1. Dead end main. Flow test the end most hydrant and use a gauge off a house spigot to get the static is the by the book, exact way to conduct the test.

    Are you saying that a static/residual off the upstream hydrant is incorrect on dead ends?

    blackb16

    LET'S TRY A MONGO for am/fm

    What? You don't like my style?

    You forgot to use italics...

    LT334

    At least you guys can all be proud of the fact that someone is at least attempting to test your hydrants. no-one in my town is.

    Aren't you?

    [ 08-27-2001: Message edited by: mongofire_99 ]

    Leave a comment:


  • LT334
    replied
    Sorry, I didnt want to get a war started. I was hoping there was an easy correct way to answer my questions. I guess this subject is like every other one and open to interpritation. At least you guys can all be proud of the fact that someone is at least attempting to test your hydrants. no-one in my town is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    LET'S TRY A MONGO for am/fm

    ...What he was asking for is whether he needed more than a flow/pitot tube reading or not to determine the available flow rate in a hydrant.

    ACTUALLY HE ASKED "If you put a pitot flow gauge on a 2 1/2 outlet and flow it, can you use the chart to convert this reading to gpm rating for that hydrant, or do you need to have the static and residual pressures? "

    Wouldn't the correct answer be, The answer is you can get good info either way RIGHT?

    Yes!

    If he was going to make a forward lay, isn't his method more accurate than you converting to 20 psi?

    Yes.

    AND THEN HE ASKED "Why wouldn't the flow at that specific pressure be good enough. "

    It would be fine for practical application, right?

    Yes.

    Your 20 psi residual is not practical, right?

    Yes.

    THEN HE SAID, "I have read a lot of info on the net about the proper way to do a hydrant check.

    You can't support your method using AWWA or NFPA now can you?

    NO!

    THEN HE SAID, Most say you need to get the residual pressure at 20 psi. Why? If the residual pressure is higher than that, why wouldn't the flow be higher? "

    The answer is Yes it would be higher, more practical, and will be accurate in a forward lay.

    AND THEN HE SAID, "wHAT IF THE HYDRANT YOU ARE TESTING IS AT THE END OF THE WATER MAIN AND YOU HAVE NO DOWNSTREAM HYDRANT TO FLOW? "

    And someone gave him a bull crap answer that could not be supported by AWWA or NFPA, right?

    Yes.

    Oh that was you spreading "worthless information" right?

    Yes.

    In fact you said, "Won't give you the most accurate but that's the best you can do. "

    That is completely wrong, right?

    Yes.

    Just admit it, you don't know how to conduct a dead end main test, right?

    Yes.

    Then you said, "The only way to determine GPM is to do the flow test and crunch the numbers."

    That is wrong too, isn't it?

    Yes!

    AWWA and NFPA suggests other methods as well modeling, diameter and run, hydraulic calculation etc. Right?

    Yes

    am/fm, it seems he said a lot more than do you need static, flow and pressure readings, doesn't it?

    YES!

    It does not appear you make a real good case does it?

    No.

    Then yo said,"Also if you've done what I suggested in my earlier post and you have dead end hydrants make developers loop the main to some other area or water source."

    Do you live in utopia?

    " As long as it's the same quality of water (potable) then water coming from two different directions should be better than one. "

    That is not accurate either, right?

    Right. A single 8 inch dead end will out flow any looped 4 or 6 inch system right? It isn't about looping it is about doing the math right the first time and following NFPA and AWWA to the letter not your good enough almost right answers, right?

    Right.


    ....While most of the fire service is satisfied to get the information that comes from the test that I described...

    So looking at the Fire Protection handbook please tell me which illustration shows only flowing one hydrant?

    THE ANSWER NONE. THEY ALL SHOW 2 or more flowing.

    So most of the fire service does it half axed???

    .... you have to confuse the issue....

    With facts.

    .... and get hose size and other useless information involved.

    Gee pal, you suggested the 20 psi residual. 20 is fine if you always park the fire truck at the hydrant. Other than Detroit and FDNY who does that every single fire?

    Worthless info???? You say 20 psi, yo told him how to determine the gpm. So 1000 gpm at 20 does not get you 1000 gpm with standard residential or commercial hydrant spacing with most hose sizes.

    DOES IT????

    No it does not.

    ....prove to everyone that you know more than everyone else?

    Obviously in this case he knows more than you! Lol

    ....Useless information?????

    YOu mean you just don't understand the practicalapplications suggested in plays post, do you?

    Leave a comment:


  • amfm
    replied
    play, or is it larry?
    What he was asking for is whether he needed more than a flow/pitot tube reading or not to determine the available flow rate in a hydrant.

    While most of the fire service is satisfied to get the information that comes from the test that I described, you have to confuse the issue and get hose size and other useless information involved.

    If this is larry, why do you have to prove to everyone that you know more than everyone else? Is it because your so insecure in other areas?

    Leave a comment:


  • Slay
    replied
    The tests descrbed are accurate, what is in the main doesn't matter, ... eh?

    What is missing in the fire service is firefighters simply saying I don't know instead of trying to BS there way through everything they don't fully understand.

    Now some answers, any pump operator was supposed to know this stuff if he is worth his salt.

    1. Dead end main. Flow test the end most hydrant and use a gauge off a house spigot to get the static is the by the book, exact way to conduct the test.

    2. What is in the main doesn't matter if I can't get it out of one hydrant? So, I am to understand yo that you are hooked to a hydrant that will flow 2000 gpm attached to a water main that will flow 24,000 gpm and you wouldn't want to go right and left of that hydrant on the same main and use the water????? Sheesh...... Main tests tell you what is going to happen to your 2000 gpm hydrant when all your buddies hook to it. The flow test you showed is on;y realistic if that is the only hydrant you are going to use on a fire. Whereas an area test will tell you that 2000 gpm hydrant isn't really a 2000 gpm hydrant and should be counted as such.

    3. As you can clearly see there is a difference in pressure.

    4. There is no reason to loop all dead ends mains, simply follow NFPA and AWWA and the dead end will be the right size to do its job...in other words follow the whole code.

    5. The book might say test at 20 psi residual but would you really leave 60 to 150% of your water in the ground the day of the fire? 20 psi is the minimum...residual. If you use 4" hose you are going to want to have a residual 3 times higher than a guy using 5" hose, and 3 inch users unless you like relays will need a residual 21 times higher than a guy using 5" and the 2 1/2" USERS WILL WANT 52 TIMES MORE RESIDUAL. You'all know the 20 psi is based upon hooking the pumper up to the hydrant directly in a reverse lay not a forward lay. The guy using 4" hose will need three pumpers in relay, the 3" user will need 21 and the 2 1/2" user 52 to do the same job as a 5" line.

    6. Flow a hydrant on each side of your static hydrant anything less isn't a valid test.


    You know, if your going to speak so matter of fact, at least be right.

    FINALLY, shall we discuss how useless multiple fire truck relays are???

    Leave a comment:


  • BIG PAULIE
    replied
    When I test hydrants for supression purposes I flow test the port on the hydrant that I am going to hook my supply line to. If I am laying duals I will flow both ports together. The tests that are being discribed by others in this thread are accurate in telling how much is available in the mains however if I can't get it out of the hydrant through the port and supply hose than it doesn't much matter how much water is available.

    Leave a comment:


  • amfm
    replied
    LT334,
    Put the gauge on the second to last hydrant and flow the last one. Won't give you the most accurate but that's the best you can do.

    Putting the gauge on the last hydrant and flowing the upstream hydrant won't do any good.

    Remember that just because there's great pressure on the hydrant in a static condition doesn't mean that these's good water. GPM puts out fire, not PSI. The only way to determine GPM is to do the flow test and crunch the numbers.

    Also if you've done what I suggested in my earlier post and you have dead end hydrants make developers loop the main to some other area or water source. As long as it's the same quality of water (potable) then water coming from two different directions should be better than one.

    Good luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • LT334
    replied
    tHANKS A LOT, THAT HELPS A BUNCH. wHAT IF THE HYDRANT YOU ARE TESTING IS AT THE END OF THE WATER MAIN AND YOU HAVE NO DOWNSTEAM HYDRANT TO FLOW?

    Leave a comment:


  • amfm
    replied
    Hosekey21,
    That's great. That's what this whole internet thing is supposed to be about.

    We had a similar experience. I was having a long standing conversation with one of our local water companies regarding an area in our first due that was at best 1250 gpm at 0 psi. (yes, the engine was close to cavitation, but the fire required more flow than was being provided) They claimed that the flow should be closer to 2000 gpm. This was important since this is a heavy industrial area.

    Further investigation by them indicated that a valve upstream was almost closed. They located the valve and opened it fully. We now have 2000 gpm.

    Any fire department that does not routinely test fire hydrants for flows or at least gets flow tests from water utilities are setting themselves up for a major loss.

    Work with your water utilities or departments and make sure that when necessary they can respond to fires and help you solve your water supply problems. Try to develop that relationship so that when developers start to develop an area that your department has enough water to fight the fire that will surely come. Make the developers foot the bill for water system improvements.

    Just my two cents and that won't even buy one.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X