And I thought I was bad at math...

Crungy said:
Interesting. I wonder if this is a mistake? This reads as if there was no fire line into the building, and the sprinkler system was fed of the your standard potable cold water!? Our old plumbing/fire protection department head was from Jersey and told me that the NYC codes were whacked, but.......
Click to expand...

There was what appears to be a 12 inch fire main that serviced the buildings. There were also 14 FDC (fire department connection) stations at ground level for FDNY to supplement the water supply and pressure to the standpipe systems and sprinkler systems above the 32nd floor of the towers (as well as the rest of the complex). Two additional FDCs served the sprinkler system above the 32nd floor of WTC1 and WTC2 exclusively, and another two served the sprinkler system below the 32nd floor of WTC1 and WTC2 exclusively. According to the report, there were a total of 32 siamese fire dept. connections servicing the complex.

The domestic plumbing system was provided with a separate independent connection to the NYC water distribution system via the FDCs. Water was supplied to the water storage tanks through the domestic plumbing system. (The fire makeup system is identified on the drawings, I believe.)

There are some drawings illustrating the water distribution system starting at p. 82 of 278 in the pdf file linked (p. 30 if you are looking at the numbers on the bottom of the page), and lots of interesting details throughout.
 
Last edited:
Crungy said:
I agree that it's a simple water make-up feed, but was there a dedicated fire piping system in the towers or was everything served from the cold water piping. That's what I'm confused about. If there isn't a dedicated main, how was the water metering handled? Who's payin' for all this sprinkler replenishing? Is this type of setup common out east? I've never encountered this setup in any building in the humble midwest here in Chicago. The fire lines are always separate from the domestic potable.
Click to expand...
In my experience, the entire fire protection system is entirely separate from the domestic water supply until the point where both systems connect to the city supply. At that point they become "common".

You always want to avoid using your fire protection system from also being used as a potable water supply. The constant draw on the potable water tends to tuberculate the piping. If the fire protection water uses the same lines, there will be greater friction loss to sprinklers in event of a fire due to tuberculation. Fire protection lines should contain mostly stagnant water (which is why it smells so danged bad :) ).
 
LashL said:
There was what appears to be a 12 inch fire main that serviced the buildings. There were also 14 FDC (fire department connection) stations at ground level for FDNY to supplement the water supply and pressure to the standpipe systems and sprinkler systems above the 32nd floor of the towers (as well as the rest of the complex). Two additional FDCs served the sprinkler system above the 32nd floor of WTC1 and WTC2 exclusively, and another two served the sprinkler system below the 32nd floor of WTC1 and WTC2 exclusively. According to the report, there were a total of 32 siamese fire dept. connections servicing the complex.

The domestic plumbing system was provided with a separate independent connection to the NYC water distribution system via the FDCs. Water was supplied to the water storage tanks through the domestic plumbing system. (The fire makeup system is identified on the drawings, I believe.)

There are some drawings illustrating the water distribution system starting at p. 82 of 278 in the pdf file linked (p. 30 if you are looking at the numbers on the bottom of the page), and lots of interesting details throughout.
Click to expand...

Much thanks for the additional info. That sounds right. All this chatter for that one sentence that threw me off. :p

One of these days I'll have a lazy weekend, download all of these reports and read them. I'd love to see the mechanical systems. Too fried after work to do anything, but skim. I know, that's bad....:boxedin:
 
Mr. Skinny said:
In my experience, the entire fire protection system is entirely separate from the domestic water supply until the point where both systems connect to the city supply. At that point they become "common".

You always want to avoid using your fire protection system from also being used as a potable water supply. The constant draw on the potable water tends to tuberculate the piping. If the fire protection water uses the same lines, there will be greater friction loss to sprinklers in event of a fire due to tuberculation. Fire protection lines should contain mostly stagnant water (which is why it smells so danged bad :) ).
Click to expand...

True, true, true my skinny friend. Plus, ya gotta pay that nice little fee for the plumbing inspector to check out your RPZ every year. It's a racket I tells ya! :D
 
LashL said:
But I have should have reposted your link for ease of reference. It's here:

NIST NCSTAR 1-4B Fire Suppression Systems:

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-4index.htm

(And I should add that the appendices are also chock full of excellent detailed drawings)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, LashL. I'll read it over the weekend.

Frankly, I don't like speculating about things based on my previous experience alone. Hopefully, the document will give me the facts.
 
Crungy said:
True, true, true my skinny friend. Plus, ya gotta pay that nice little fee for the plumbing inspector to check out your RPZ every year. It's a racket I tells ya! :D
Click to expand...
Had to google what an RPZ was, Crungy. Now I know it's a backflow preventer.

I am now officially smarter. :)
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Had to google what an RPZ was, Crungy. Now I know it's a backflow preventer.

I am now officially smarter. :)
Click to expand...

Your plumbing skillz is now mad phat. :cool:

Code requires that you always place an RPZ for any feed from a potable water source to a non potable water source. Back pressure into a potable water line equal contamination, which leads to possible health sickness issues, which then goes back to a big fat lawsuit for you.
 
Crungy said:
Your plumbing skillz is now mad phat. :cool:

Code requires that you always place an RPZ for any feed from a potable water source to a non potable water source. Back pressure into a potable water line equal contamination, which leads to possible health sickness issues, which then goes back to a big fat lawsuit for you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was already hip to the code stuff for backflow preventers on AS systems, I just wasn't familiar with calling them RPZ's.

This thread is helping me brush up on my sprinkler system skills (or is that skillz?). Nah, I'm too old to have phat plumbing skillz. :)
 
Mr. Skinny said:
Yeah, I was already hip to the code stuff for backflow preventers on AS systems, I just wasn't familiar with calling them RPZ's.

This thread is helping me brush up on my sprinkler system skills (or is that skillz?). Nah, I'm too old to have phat plumbing skillz. :)
Click to expand...

I'm an HVAC guy, but the first two companies I worked for were smaller. Unlike larger companies where you'd learn only a limited amount of specific tasks, I was forced to learn all aspects of design, plus plumbing and fire protection design. When I came on board at my current company. We actually had a Plumbing/Fire Protection group. The head guy was also the president of the Chicago ASPE chapter. After a coupla jobs where I did my own plumbing and fire protection, he recommended that I stick with HVAC design. It's been six years since I've touched plumbing and fire protection. I can still be dangerous though.
 
Crungy said:
I'm an HVAC guy, but the first two companies I worked for were smaller. Unlike larger companies where you'd learn only a limited amount of specific tasks, I was forced to learn all aspects of design, plus plumbing and fire protection design. When I came on board at my current company. We actually had a Plumbing/Fire Protection group. The head guy was also the president of the Chicago ASPE chapter. After a coupla jobs where I did my own plumbing and fire protection, he recommended that I stick with HVAC design. It's been six years since I've touched plumbing and fire protection. I can still be dangerous though.
Click to expand...
I worked for Factory Mutual Engineering for about 5 years right after I graduated uni. It was my first real world engineering job.

I've looked at fire protection requirements and sprinkler systems, and fire pumps, and suction tanks, reviewed drawings for new fire protection systems, etc. for about every kind of imaginable industry. Wet pipe systems, dry pipe systems, anti-freeze systems, deluge systems, pre-action systems, blah, blah......I understand the basics.

That was nearly 30 years ago though, so I'm sure I have much to catch up on. However, even though my experience was quite a while ago, I will speak up when some CT tries to say that there was a 180,000 gallon suction tank at the top of the WTC's that could have put out the fire (or some such nonsense).
 
Mr. Skinny said:
I worked for Factory Mutual Engineering for about 5 years right after I graduated uni. It was my first real world engineering job.

I've looked at fire protection requirements and sprinkler systems, and fire pumps, and suction tanks, reviewed drawings for new fire protection systems, etc. for about every kind of imaginable industry. Wet pipe systems, dry pipe systems, anti-freeze systems, deluge systems, pre-action systems, blah, blah......I understand the basics.

That was nearly 30 years ago though, so I'm sure I have much to catch up on. However, even though my experience was quite a while ago, I will speak up when some CT tries to say that there was a 180,000 gallon suction tank at the top of the WTC's that could have put out the fire (or some such nonsense).
Click to expand...

Yup, the 180,000 gallon holding tank was a big red flag, that even someone like me knew was pretty suspicious. It's amazing how none of the CTers have any experience in either building design or building construction. They fail to grasp even the most basic design and construction concepts.

A month or so ago I read an article regarding WTC 7 which was posted on a CT site. Some of the response mocked at how stupid the gubmit must think the brillant minds of troof land are to believe that a system of desiel fuel tanks, pumps and piping exists in a building to serve generators. The troofers thought it was some make believe nonsense planted by the government to sell the enormous fire in WTC 7 story. Troofer posts are amazing. I couldn't even make up stuff that loopy.
 
uk_dave said:
ahhhh but you forgot to add:

"....couldn't be destroyed except through massive amounts of explosives or a death beam from space, even though they were corroded enough to require demolition by 2007"

Perfecto!:D
Click to expand...

I stand amended.
 
My brother runs a restaurant, and he once had an aggressive salesman trying to get his business, claiming "We have TEN BILLION customers worldwide!"

When my brother pointed out that there were only six billion people alive, the salesman assured him that the number was more like 30 billion.
 
1. Sprinklers. I note in passing that modern sprinkler systems serve to contain fires until the Fire Brigade arrive, rather than wholly suppress them (unless very small). There's been considerable debate in the UK about whether misting systems might be a practical alternative in certain circumstances.

2. Asbestos. To quote the head of the HSE Scotland, "some of it kills you less quickly than others". There are certain asbestos based products (asbestos cement, stair nosings, and so on) that are less toxic because the fibres are bound and thus less chance of inhalation. But really, you wouldn't believe how widespread the stuff is - Artex, for example, until recently!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom