When sizing a water storage tank for exclusive fire protection use, and fed by a fire pump, should

the tank be sized on 150% of pumps rated capacity (at the req'd duration)or just the fire sprinkler
demand + inside hose?
Fire sprinkler demand + inside hose x duration= tank capacity. If u have any dry pipe or preaction
system then as per NFPA 13 u have to add the gpm required to fill the systems for your total gpm
for the tank.
If you have standpipes per NFPA 14, you have to consider the flow/duration for those - if it
exceeds what the sprinklers require.
It is my opinion that the water tank is to be sized for the greatest demand. If you have hydrants,
that is often your greatest demand. Second is usually standpipes, followed by sprinklers. If you
have a pump taking suction from the tank, you want to be sure you have enough water in the
tank to be able to complete the pump test.

Travis, so what do you think in this case - make the tank able to supply 30 minutes at 150%
capacity + 30 minutes at 100% capacity and compare that with the sprinkler + hose demand at
60 minutes and see which is greater?

1500 gpm pump @ 150% = 2250 gallons X 30 minutes = 67,500 gallons

1500 gpm pump @ 100% x 30 minutes = 45,000 gallons

---------------------------------
= 112,500 gallons

compared to sprinkler demand (+ hose stations inside) = 1,642 gpm X 60 minutes = 98,520
gallons

Of course the pump test durations were just arbitrary - not that anyone is going to need the
pump running at 150% for 30 minutes to test it... but it would be embarassing to run out of water
for the pump test and the above seems to dictate at least a 100,000 gallon tank.

I'm late to the party but I have a question: What is the fire flow? Travis stated this, but sprinkler
demand is not the same as firefighting water demand, and that's the question in my arena.

Travis answered it, and the original poster neglected to even raise the question.

Without all the facts this is not a simple question. We don't know if this a community fire pump, a
building fire pump, a campus fire pump or what the heck you are trying to protect. Tell me what is
"exclusive" as you originally asked.
Stookey, pump & tank are for fire sprinklers and inside hose stations- exclusively. No hydrants, no
domestic, no nothing - but fire sprinklers.
I don't see why you would need to run the fire pump for 30 minutes at 150% and 30 minutes at
100%. It looks like your sprinkler demand is going to be the driving force.

Does this tank have an automatic float for refill. You can even use that to reduce the size of the
tank if needed.
Oremus,

I stand corrected. I should have read the question more closely.

NFPA 851/850 (protection for power plants) states that the design water capacity of the system
should able to be refilled in 8hrs or less, is there a similar requirement for just sprinkler-internal
hose systems water tanks as per Oremus case?
When you run your pump test can't you run your hoses back to the tank so you don't have to
refill the tank after your annual pump test? I've done this on a few projects and doing this
combined with using a flow meter makes the pump test easy.
NFPA 22, 08

14.4.2 The means to fill the tank shall be sized to fill the tank in a maximum time of 8 hours.

Chevy

Why bother with hoses, use a flow meter into the tank and make it easy it is permitted by NFPA
25,08 see below.

8.3.3 Annual Tests.

8.3.3.1.2.2 Use of the Pump Discharge via the Bypass Flowmeter to Drain or Suction Reservoir.
Pump suction and discharge pressures and the flowmeter measurements shall determine the
total pump output.

8.3.3.1.3 Where the annual test is conducted periodically in accordance with 8.3.3.1.2.3, a test
shall be conducted every 3 years in accordance with 8.3.3.1.2.1 or 8.3.3.1.2.2 in lieu of the
method described in 8.3.3.1.2.3.

How about a solved example that everyone agrees with ?

If fire flows are an issue I could calculate it for my own purposes but would want verification by a
PE or FPE before proceeding. After reading everything about it I could find I concluded ISO fire
flows are an area sprinkler layout technicians aren't qualified to navigate. What the heck, a set of
plans with $300 or so on a $10 million project could save me a lot of headache down the road so
why take the risk?

Why the 1500 gpm pump on a project that requires but a 30 minute supply? Sounds light hazard
to me unless there are ISO fire flows involved.

From NFPA #20 appendix A-2-3

A stationary pump for fire protection should be selected in the range of operation from 90 percent
to 150 percent of its rated capacity. The performance of the pump when applied at capacities
over 140 percent of rated capacity can be adversely affected by the suction conditions.
Application of the pump at capacities less than 90 percent of the rated capacity is not
recommended.

Seems a 500 gpm pump would handle anything up to OH2.

My understanding the correct way is to calculate total sprinkler demand plus hose stream
allowance for whatever time requirement there was. 400 gpm sprinkler + 250 hose = 650 gpm
which would call for a 39,000 gallon water storage regardless of the pump size.

Personally I like to size the tank for the pump at 150% for whatever time is required. In the case
of a 500 gpm pump I prefer to size the tank at 750 gpm for 60 minutes and provide a 45,000
gallon tank. Come on, the cost difference between a 39,000 gallon and 45,000 is very minimal.
What are we talking about, $6,000 more on a project that might be sellign for $10 million?

I've always been able to offer it to the owner as an alternate which they always accept when you
explain the larger tank would take care of any additions or a density increase should something
change down the road.

But the answer to the question (not addressing ISO fire flows) is sprinkler demand plus inside and
outside hose stream allowance if any.
I'm working my way through an automatic "wet" sprinkler design for an Ordinary Hazard Group 2
area. I'm having trouble definitively determining whether to use the pipe schedule method or the
hydraulic method (7-2.2 & 7-2.3 in NFPA 13) to determine water demand.

It seems to me that sometime in the past I read that the hydraulic method was "preferred" by
most modern designs, but can't recall the source of that comment. I've read and re-read NFPA 13
for clues as well as the Fire Protection Handbook from NFPA, but can't seem to find the reference.

For previous designs, I've used the Hydraulic Method and have spreadsheets already set up to
assist me. But it seems that the pipe schedule design is a quicker, "cook book" design approach.
One advantage of the Hydraulic method is that the water demand typically appears to be smaller
(i.e. lower flow rate). This can be a bit of a concern in most of my designs, as the areas I deal with
don't typically have access to "public water" and therefore the water must be supplied and
"dedicated" to the fire suppression system by the owner of the property. This dedicated water
supply costs money so the lower the flow rate, and the lower the total volume, the lower the
costs.

I'm trying to develop a design guideline for myself (and my company) so that I don't have to
wrestle through these comments every time I do a sprinkler design (every couple of years it
seems).

Any comments?

I believe if you read the latest editions of the Code, only existing Pipe Schedule Systems may be
replaced. All new must be hydraulically designed/calc'd.

We always check over pipe schedule systems with a hydraulic calc to check. It all depends on the
situation which requires more water.

Thank you for your response. I believe your statement is correct for the Extra Hazard Occupancy.
Below is text from NFPA 13 - 1999 Edition. My interpretation of this is that the Pipe Schedule
method can still be used for new systems of the Ordinary (and Light) Hazard Occupancies. I have
based all of my designs on the hydraulic method, but was just wondering if I couldn't do it more
quickly by using the pipe schedule method (if the available water supply was sufficient).

7-2.2 Water Demand Requirements Pipe Schedule

Method.
7-2.2.1 Table 7-2.2.1 shall be used in determining the minimum
water supply requirements for light and ordinary hazard occupancies
protected by systems with pipe sized according to the
pipe schedules of Section 8-5. Pressure and flow requirements
for extra hazard occupancies shall be based on the hydraulic calculation
methods of 7-2.3. The pipe schedule method shall be
permitted only for new installations of 5000 ft2 (465 m2) or less
or for additions or modifications to existing pipe schedule systems
sized according to the pipe schedules of Section 8-5. Table
7-2.2.1 shall be used in determining the minimum water supply
requirements.
Exception No. 1: The pipe schedule method shall be permitted for use in systems
exceeding 5000 ft2 (465 m2) where the flows required in Table 7-2.2.1
are available at a minimum residual pressure of 50 psi (3.4 bar) at the
highest elevation of sprinkler.
Exception No. 2: The pipe schedule method shall be permitted for additions
or modifications to existing extra hazard pipe schedule systems.
Just as a note the latest version of NFPA 13 is 2002 Edition.

I just read it over and recalled that the local AHJ is the reason we don't use pipe schedule. They
do not permit it unless replacing existing and even then only if you can show a redesign to
hydraulic would be very difficult due to pipe locations.

Quote from the NFPA 13 Handbook:

The use of pipe schedule design approaches is restricted to rather small systems, unless high
residual pressures are available. While the pipe schedule approach had previously served as an
acceptable design option for a wider range of buildings and spaces, it's misuse has resulted in its
restricted application.

NFPA 13, 2002, table 11.2.2.1 for a light hazard requires 15 psi at 500-750 gpm. A light hazard
hydraulic system requires .10/1500 or about 150 gpm plus 100 gpm for FD hose for a total of 250
gpm about 50% less gpm then a pipe schedule system. Section 11.2.2.5 requires the residual
pressure of 50 psi at the highest elevation if the system is larger then 5,000 sq. ft. I think the
NFPA 13 committee is saying you can do it but why? 50 psi flowing 500 gpm on top of a 30 foot
building!! and if the sprinkler system is a local alarm only, the flow is increased to 750 gpm as
per section 11.2.2.7. I would think a hydraulic designed system would be much cheaper to install
particularly if you have a marginal water supply.

With the advent of hydraulic calculation programs for fire sprinkler systems, pipe schedules are
mostly a thing of the past. Addtionally, I have run into many pipe schedule systems that don't
always calculate out.

If you are concerned about water supply requirements, you can calculate the system using quick
response sprinklers (light and ordinary hazard wet pipe systems)and reduce the design area as
long as the ceiling or roof deck (if exposed) is less than 20'. You can get between a 40 and 60%
reduction in the design area.

I have not done a pipe schedule system in probably the last 10 years, and I do fire sprinkler
systems every day.

I hope this is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to email me.

Hydraulic calculations and systems designed with hydraulic calculations require an understanding
of the effects the layout can have on the demand. A poorly designed system can have a higher
demand than a pipe schedule system.

I've noticed with some of our newer designers that they don't necessarily understand the effect
balance can have on their demand as the software is doing the work for them.

You are correct on that one. I remember being required to calculate tree systems by hand when I
first started. We had the computer programs to do it, but the lead engineer wanted to make sure
I understood what the computer was doing with the calculations. That was one of the best
lessons I was given in the fire sprinkler industry.
Once you understand how it works you start to lay your systems out so that they balance. It's
really fun with some of the programs available now. You can try different sprinklers, different
pipe, different areas. Minutes to do what once took days. You can play with a pipe sizes, hit the
button, and get instant feedback. Don't like the results just undo it. Technology, my favorite tool.