Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Vane Type Water Flow Device 2
- Thread starter NJ1
- Start date
-
1
- #2
TravisMack
Mechanical
Check page 2 of the data sheet
6" from a fitting. 24" from valve or drain.
Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
6" from a fitting. 24" from valve or drain.
Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
-
1
- Thread starter
- #3
TravisMack
Mechanical
Yes. If you can't find information in the standards, be sure to check the data sheets. They often have the criteria.
This data sheet is also why some engineers specify no more than 18 fps in risers.
Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
This data sheet is also why some engineers specify no more than 18 fps in risers.
Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
- Thread starter
- #5
The only problem with this is that is not a mandatory requirement so that means it could be ignored if the installation calls for drastic measures. For example:
If you only have 6 inches between valve and ell-bow you really have no other choice correct.
If you only have 6 inches between valve and ell-bow you really have no other choice correct.
TravisMack
Mechanical
It is in the manufacturer's data sheet, so it is a requirement. I have had to do some unique pipe routing to maintain some of these requirements.
If the data sheet stuff is not a requirement, then I guess one could install Tyco attic heads at 12" from the roof deck and have the deflector parallel to the roof as that is how NFPA 13 says a sprinkler should be installed. However, that would be an incorrect installation and not meet the sprinkler listing requirements.
Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
If the data sheet stuff is not a requirement, then I guess one could install Tyco attic heads at 12" from the roof deck and have the deflector parallel to the roof as that is how NFPA 13 says a sprinkler should be installed. However, that would be an incorrect installation and not meet the sprinkler listing requirements.
Travis Mack
MFP Design, LLC
- Thread starter
- #7
Oh no absolutely. What i meant to say is that if you read the manufacturers spec you provided it indicates "SHOULD" not be installed within 6" of a fitting. That automatically changes everything. It id said "SHALL" be installed on the top side of the horizontal pipe.
You know how I feel about SHOULD vs SHALL
You know how I feel about SHOULD vs SHALL
It is interesting that the terminolgy changes from the 'Shall' stated in regards to the WFS being installed on top of the pipe, to using 'Should' for the clearance fro valve/fitting.
And then you have the likes of this
My understanding is that since the manufacture has received approval based on this arrangement that it is ok to have the WFS basically right beside the valve/drains/fittings.
To be honest seeens a bit 'bogus' that the manufacturers of these Riser Control Assemblies can get approval for the WFS close to the Valve/Drain but the WFS manufacturer can't.(?)
Posible that the term 'should' was chosen over shall to allow for these type assemeblies.(?)
Also, while having the conversation
,as you mentioned there are some projects that the Engineer can specifiy to reduce the velocity in risers to comply with the maximum allowable surge stated on the datasheet. However, since this is stated on the manufacturers datasheet, with the same theory that the manufacturers recomendations become requirement for installation, then it would seem that even if the engineer has not specified a restriction on the velocity in riser, that the restriction still exists by way of the datasheet, and therefore should be standard practice anyway. (I don't usually see this happening).
Thoughts?
And then you have the likes of this
My understanding is that since the manufacture has received approval based on this arrangement that it is ok to have the WFS basically right beside the valve/drains/fittings.
To be honest seeens a bit 'bogus' that the manufacturers of these Riser Control Assemblies can get approval for the WFS close to the Valve/Drain but the WFS manufacturer can't.(?)
Posible that the term 'should' was chosen over shall to allow for these type assemeblies.(?)
Also, while having the conversation
,as you mentioned there are some projects that the Engineer can specifiy to reduce the velocity in risers to comply with the maximum allowable surge stated on the datasheet. However, since this is stated on the manufacturers datasheet, with the same theory that the manufacturers recomendations become requirement for installation, then it would seem that even if the engineer has not specified a restriction on the velocity in riser, that the restriction still exists by way of the datasheet, and therefore should be standard practice anyway. (I don't usually see this happening).Thoughts?
- Thread starter
- #9
Do you see why I have a great hard time when arguments come to light. I believe that if you tell me you shall not do this based on an approved code than I have no choice to do it the other way. However you are looking at an approved device listed for the purpose.
Our first discussion had nothing to do with approved listed devices rather than field installations. If you have to install a flow device based on the original argument what would you do? Remember that the specs said should not.
Our first discussion had nothing to do with approved listed devices rather than field installations. If you have to install a flow device based on the original argument what would you do? Remember that the specs said should not.
stookeyfpe
Specifier/Regulator
Its a water flow switch kids. Travis is correct. Why do you want it to be something special?
Let Travis produce his shop drawings.
Let Travis produce his shop drawings.
- Thread starter
- #11
We are not saying Travis is not correct however the fact still remains that is this case the manufacturer is contradicting the requirement. Thats all. When I read the spec I will say "Oh well it should not be closer than 6" from a fitting but is not mandatory"
- Thread starter
- #12
I guess we can all be clear on this discussion. I just got of the phone with potter and their interpretation in that is recommended but not required since the word SHOULD is in place. I just want to make sure that my technicians do the right thing out in the field.
- Status
Similar threads
