×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Flow test results that smell bad.

Flow test results that smell bad.

Flow test results that smell bad.

(OP)
Someone made the claim of the following flow test on a 10" city water main.

Standard hydrant with 2 1/2" outlets

Static Pressure 62 psi
Residual Pressure 48 psi
Rate of Flow 1,412 gpm

They did not give a pitot.

This can't be right. I have yet to see a pitot pressure higher than the residual pressure and even if the pitot was 48 psi that would produce 1,163 gpm using a discharge coefficient of 0.90.

So I conducted my own test and got 62 psi static, 48 psi residual with 39 psi pitot for 1,048 gpm using a 0.90 coefficient of discharge. Yeah, it surprised me too that we came out with the exact same static and residual pressures.

Approximately 300' of 8" separated the two hydrants and even if we used a discharge coefficient of 150 a residual pressure of 48 psi would produce 1,040 gpm which is about what I got.

How is it possible someone could have come up with 1,412 gpm? The only answer I could come up with is they used hose monsters on both 2 1/2" outlets and combined them but the fire department who witnessed the test never mentioned two outlets or hose monsters.

And finally (I already know the answer to this) has anyone ever seen a pitot pressure that was higher than the residual upstream hydrant on level ground? Level is it's in the swamp that has alligators, elevation changes is not a factor. (The answer is no, not possible on level ground but I got to ask for someone else).

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

Since you did a two hydrant flow test, were the two hydrants at the same elevation?

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

(OP)

Quote (chicopee)

Since you did a two hydrant flow test, were the two hydrants at the same elevation?

Yes, within 1'-0"

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

Everyone use calibrated Gages???

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

Plus reading them is it 71, 70, 74????? Depending on the person reading the gage

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

(OP)
cdafd,

The most important part of any job is what I did yesterday, the flow test. I don't care how pretty the drawing is if the flow test is inaccurate all you got is garbage so when it comes to calibrated gauges I am probably the biggest stickler on the planet. The bean counters hate it because the calibration cost more than the gauge does.

http://www.dfs-gauges.com/products/35+1009AW+02L+1...

But more important than the gauges is the calibration certificate. I get mine done at http://www.dascosales.com/calibration-and-certific... which are tested in accordance with ASME B40.100-2005. The biggest error my last certificate shows (I get these done annually) is 0.27% at 60 psi so it's as accurate as your eyeball.

Unless I am told absolutely not I insist on conducting my own flow test using my gauges with the fire department people watching as a witness. Oftentimes I will suggest they use their gauges to check against mine and when I did this yesterday their gauge read identical to mine.

These gauges are mine and nobody else touches them. I protect them and when not in use they are stored safely in the bottom drawer of my office desk. These gauges due for calibration the beginning of April.

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

Unless I am missing this, your trying to equate velocity pressure to the hydrodynamic pressures of a system.

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

(OP)
Stookey,

No, not trying to it's just that I have never seen results where an obtained pitot pressure was higher than the residual pressure.

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

I'm a little confused of the juxtaposition of the entre' statement,
<<<Someone made the claim of the following flow test on a 10" city water main.>>>

with the later phrase,
<<<Approximately 300' of 8" separated the two hydrants...>>>

While I guess this probably makes some sort of sense, would it be possible to provide maybe a rough sketch of the exact layout of main w/ location of various main size(s?)you say both testers were dealing with, to arrive at these different results?

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

Looking through my spreadsheet with years' worth of flow data there are only two instances where the pitot pressure is higher than the residual pressure and those differences are minute (within 10% and on a low pressure main). NFPA 291 will tell you a pressure gage attached to one 2-1/2" outlet on a hydrant flowing the other 2-1/2" outlet will yield close to pitot pressure. Also the listed K factor for a fire hydrant, i read somewhere years ago, is around 148. My statistical data gives me 146 average, median 153 and mode 159. Your 203 is quite an outlier. I think someone simply wrote the results down wrong or made a mistake somewhere else. Your data, SD2, makes much more sense.

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

(OP)
Newton,

I've never seen a pitot pressure higher than the residual except where the discharging hydrant was at a significantly lower elevation than the test hydrant.

There's nothing complex about this test; the hydrants are within 1' in elevation of each other, the main is a dead end main with the flowing hydrant at the every end with 300' between the two hydrants.

To clarify the statement to rconner the main is 10" diameter except for the last 300' of pipe between the last two hydrants on the main which is 8".

I've always used a K-factor for a hydrant of 145 only as a double check to see if the results "make sense". With 300' of 8" the k-factor of the hydrant might lower from 145 to 140 but that would be nearly insignificant.

My feeling is someone wrote the wrong number down which is why I prefer doing my own test. Imagine taking someone's word, be they fire department or whoever, only to find out the pump supplying your new 250,000 sq. ft. ESFR warehouse won't work.

RE: Flow test results that smell bad.

I agree the data from the given flow test is wrong. I do not have the elevation data in my spreadsheet so that may be the culprit to explain the higher pitot vs. residual pressure; in truth I never have sussed out the residual vs. pitot pressure in my data. I use a calibrated diffuser and the ID of the diffuser isn't 2.5" but somewhere near 2.6" where the pitot tube is. I derived the pitot pressures for a 2.5" diameter orifice from the data and compared to residual pressure just out of curiosity.

Like you, I always do my own flow test even if someone else has done the same. I trust my calibrated gages and have documentation that I can rely on to back up whatever I say. Who knows what equipment the other outfit used and in what condition it was in? As you have said; if the flow test is wrong, then everything is wrong.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources