These are usually available from the manufacturer. Akso, it may not be a bad idea to have a mfr. authorized rep. do the fill on the bladder, as ii is my understanding that this can be tricky on some tanks (i.e., the baldder is easily damaged).
Services provided include: Fire Protection Engineering, Emergency Response Planning, Fire Investigation and Process Safety Management.
In the US there are four(4) main manufacturers of foam systems and each has a manual for their design.
If you can tell me what manufacture your looking at, I may be able to help with a PDF version of the manual.
Rockwood, now owned by Ansul, used to have an odd design in what they called their "Diaphragm" tank. This was simply a bladder that went between two halves of a tank with foam on one side and water on the other.
Regardless of the manufacture the filling procedures are basically the same.
Well if that isn't one of the biggest coincidences... I am reading one right now, an O and M for MFS bladder tanks that include instructions for both horizontal (mine) and vertical models. I'll attach it for you. If you have any info on how acceptance testing is performed (tank farms / Ansul AFC foam chambers) I'd be interested! Have a great day.
Acceptance testing can be a bit difficult with a fixed system that is connected to tank foam chambers. In the past I've been involved with tests where the chambers were installed facing outwards and then rotated and bolted to the tank after the test. Most foam systems don't have any test headers or connections.
The proportioning system can be tested using foam concentrate or an environmentally friendly alternative. I've not been involved with a test on a bladder tank, but am sure it can be done. If you're looking for someone to help try Vector Fire Technology (610-466-1717). They work nation wide and specialize in foam system testing.
Stephen Haines, P.E.
Haines Fire & Risk Consulting
I notice the link to the file I was trying to share does not seem to work. It's a 3941kb file. Perhaps it's too large? I'll try again. If it doesn't work I'll think of something else.
David
Did you manage to locate a manual? Is your project already installed. If so is there any chance I could see a few pictures? We just got the pump room design back from the engineers and I'm about to statert with the take-offs. To see how someone else has done it would be very helpful.
Thanks, no manual yet.
I tried your link and also failed.
A man from Chemguard told me he´ll send me one, but I´m still waiting. I been given some hints, and technical info on bladder tanks but nothing written. So if you have any particular question maybe I could comment on it.
From a propposal I´ve been suggested I´m couriuos: has anyone seen foam chambers protecting a diesel fuel fixed roof tank with 1% AFFF foam?. Some told me that it is not a problem and others tell that there are no foam chambers that have been "approved, tested or listed" with 1%, and most of all are designed to work with 3%, any comment? I use the quotation marks because I´m not sure of the need or existence of listings of foam chambers for specific foam concentrates and solutions.
I believe Ansul may be listing some of their chambers with their 1% AFF. You may want to theck with their Northeast represenative, Jim Schwander ((215) 297-8391). I'm not sure if WF&HC has listed their 1% Thunderstorm with any fixed equipment, but they may have done some testing with it. You can try Glen Durham there at ((504) 275-1927).
Technically speaking, everything in a fire system is supposed to be listed to work with everything else in the system. However, from a practical stand point most look at this as "parts is parts" and will call it good as long as the equipment has a listing (any listing). I would talk to your 1% liquids mfr. though before mating it with a foam chamber that it has not been tested on. I don't know if there are any increased or decreased agitation/mixing requirements with 1% compared to the traditional concentrates.
The manufacturers of foam equipment don't help much in this regards either. Their listings are always tricky, as some manufacturers list every piece of equipment with every liquid they make (expensive from a testing/listing standpoint), while others selectively list some of their equipment to certain liquids and call the rest good by comparative analysis.
Stephen Haines, P.E.
Haines Fire & Risk Consulting
Our company has all the equipment sized for AFFF3% but a vendor told us why we don´t go to AFFF%1, considering that in general modern 1% foams tend to be more efecctive, this will impact a lot in sizing a bladder tank for example.
I´ve gave glance to technical sheets and in general all manufacturers have the possibility to size the equipments to 1%, but dealing with the concentrate some say that 1% is a modern better foam that work excellent with aspirating and non aspirating devices, and since 1% works fine with non air aspirating devices they should work fine with a foam chamber. Others are more conservative and say that for foam chambers is better to stay with the 3%, but they don´t have a technical reason, they only mention listings that I really don´t know in detail.
I agree with you that listings are tricky in the sense that sometimes they just list what they are ment to list but not necesarily list the real use you are looking for.
Don't be fooled by a salesman. I am not aware of any independent tests that show 1% concentrates as being more effective at fire suppression than their 3% cousins. The solution flow rate required for 1% concentrates is the same as for 3% concetrates.
The only true difference that I am aware of is that they reduce your storage quantities and/or tank sizes by 2/3's compared to 3% concentrates.
Stephen Haines, P.E.
Haines Fire & Risk Consulting
