It's not used as a domestic water supply pump, but is connected to the single main that supplies domestic and fire suppression needs. So if it is NFPA 20 rated, then it could contaminate the drinking water if it were ever used.
If the pump isnt acceptable, then, of course it's not possible to get a policy. It would sure be convenient if some einstein-level manufactuter came up with a magical pump that would be both acceptable to an insurance company AND meet drinking water standards.
What's interesting in my case is that everyone (City, Fire Marshall, etc) signed off the plans which included a drinking water rated NSF 61 pump to serve domestic, hydrants, and risers/sprinklers in parallel with a few smaller pumps to serve everyday use. Turns out that the only "someone" who...
LittleInch,
Thank you for your input. All the manufacturer's I've spoken with have said the same thing as you and this is what I am afraid of. It just seems that someone could become a millionaire pretty quick if they found a way to make such a pump feasible/possible. My particular project has...
Thanks so much for your reply. It is regarding an actual project, but I don't have a completed datasheet. I have spoken with several manufacturers, and they've all suggested that there does not exist a pump which meets both NFPA 20 and NSF 61. I think they've suggested something like gaskets...
Suppose I'm designing a single service main to serve BOTH fire sprinkler/hydrants AND domestic needs. I would love for the pump gods to have come up with a way to create a single high flow pump that is fire rated (NFPA 20) AND meets drinking water standards (NSF 61). Is anyone aware of a pump...
...I think there must be a flaw in this calculation...
In my example, at t = 90 min, the unit hydrograph yields a total cumulative rainfall of 0.888*1.83 = 1.625 inches. Over the 26.12 acres, this yields a volume of 154,075 cf. Also, at 90 minutes, a release of 0.2 cfs/ac would yield a total...
...peak daily flows of 177 gpm each for Bldgs 1 and 2 (assuming flushometer valves), and 208 gpm for each of Bldgs. 3 through 7, for a total of 2*177 + 5*208 = 1394 gpm culinary use. Since the entire development (all seven buildings) will be on the same waterline loop, we could also look at the...
cvg, that's correct. PSI = Feet of Head divided by 2.31,
however, in my case, I'm converting in the other direction. 77.88 PSI, when converted, is 179.9 feet of head.
This makes my equation: 4552 ft + 179.9 ft = 4731.9 ft
Units can definitely be a bugger sometimes though. I mix them up...
Gocha, thanks for the reply coloeng! I guess looking at, say, a V = 10 ft/s would yield a velocity head of only (10^2)/(2*32.2) ≈ 1.55 ft => 3.59 psi, which isn't a ton of pressure I suppose... And perhaps by not including it, we would have conservative results. Thoughts anyone?
...Also, if it doesn't include velocity head, why not?
I've attached an example screen shot, and running a quick calculation shows that 4552+77.88*2.31 ≈ 4731.9 which is very close to 4731.73 ft of total head, so I'm imagining that maybe the Total Head doesn't include velocity head...
thread555-88205
I have had the most difficult time getting some PS text in a particular dwg to show up over a viewport that has a raster image. Tried multiple workarounds with no luck. Finally, a coworker suggested I do an audit on the dwg, then save, close, and re-open. For some reason it did...
Valve (GPV). I just don't see where to enter the name of a curve like I do with Pumps...http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=90b50d67-5a5f-49db-b10c-5bdd6f3a0723&file=GPV.JPG
Here is a screenshot of what I see when I open the properties on a valve and pump.http://files.engineering.com/getfile.aspx?folder=61487298-763e-4df6-b6ad-6e41342b0b7d&file=Pump.JPG
Hello,
I'm running an EPANET model for a commercial metered system. I'm required to install a water meter near the single connection point to the system. The meter that was chosen will produce headloss that varies with flow rate through the meter. I've created a "Curve" in EPANET to represent...
I'm not anticipating that anyone will review this plan in the near future. I'm just worried that the County or the EPA will show up on-site and want to see which "model or other type of calculator" I used to come up with the % sediment removal efficiency number that I came up with. I am required...
When I was first looking at this problem, I was hoping to find some literature somewhere that shows a % Sediment Removal Rate for different BMPs such as a silt fence. However, I spoke with someone more familiar with the requirements to comply with the 50' buffer section of the General Permit...
Thank you for your reply. The only guidance I can find is in Appendix D of the Utah Construction General Permit UTRC00000. Step 2 on Page D-11 suggests the use of a model such as RUSLE for determining the Percent Sediment Removal Efficiency of storm water controls.
