Firewater Branch Piping

Hello Fellow Stressers!!!

What is your interpretation of the statement below:

"The fire devices located on a single branch line shall constitute no more than 50% of the devices available to protect any single piece of process equipment or structure."

Thanks & Warm Regards,

We are all in the same page in this case.

Cheers!!

means that if you have an equipment to be protected you need at least two branches with equal or less than 50% of the total number of sprinklers needed for that equipment. Example: if you need 3 sprinklers, you will need 3 branches with 1 sprinklers each, because if you have two branches, one will have 2 sprinklers which is more than 50%. The reason is if one branch fail at least 50% of capacity should still remain functional

Regards

Thanks dan. Now it's clear to me.

My case is an equipment which requires single fire monitor coverage which I think this one is not applicable. I think this one is applicable to equipment requiring "two monitor coverage" in which each monitor shall be on a separate branch (50% each).

Just correct me if my interpretation is not correct.

Cheers!!!

Normally monitors are placed quite far from the area in a place not subject to fire hazard- (maybe direct on the fire water ring). A monitor cover a large area not small equipment.

Thanks dan. You're right. The monitors covers approximately 15m to 30m maximum coverage.

Cheers!!

Hi Borzki, many times you have interesting questions or opinions, but you always end with "Just correct me if my interpretation is not correct" or similar.
You have to get rid of this. Have your opinions. Sometimes you will be argued. Nothing wrong. Just have gut to express your opinion.
Just my 2c.
Just correct me if my interpretation is not correct

Thanks Dan for the good advice. Need to boost up my confidence level.:)

I've learned a lot from the experts in this forum and I'm continuing doing a self study myself.

But sometimes I come across things that confuses me. And I feel the thirst to satisfy my appetite for knowledge through other colleagues opinion.

Anyway, I will try to avoid that statement again.:)

Nice to have someone give an advise to me in this forum.

Cheers!!