1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Northwest Pa.
    Posts
    3

    Default Need help with an age old Debate!

    Hey guys/ gals, I am certain this has been debated time and time again but for the life of me (or due to the fact that I am new to this forum) I cannot find any of the information that I need.
    My Department currently has 1997 KME TL (102') that has an Elkhart sm2000 Fog tip on the monitor. We have run numerous flow evaluations with this current setup on my crew, and have proven time and again that this nozzle just does not give us the reach and penetration that we would like to see from an elevated master stream. I have gone to the Chief and suggested that we replace the fog tip with a smoothbore nozzle with tips of 1 1/4", 1 1/2" and 1 1 3/4", which we currently have off the old ladder truck. I know we won't be able to flow 1000 gpm with this set-up like we could with the fog but, my thought is that even with 800 gpm from the 1 3/4" smoothbore, reach, penetration and actual GPM on target would far surpass our current setup. Although he has not shot down my idea, he has asked me to come up with a comprehensive report on the pro's and con's of each nozzle. More or less I have to sell it to him before he will decide. Does anybody out there have any literature or information that I can use to try and convince the Chief? Any and all will be greatly appreciated

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EngineGuy51 View Post
    Hey guys/ gals, I am certain this has been debated time and time again but for the life of me (or due to the fact that I am new to this forum) I cannot find any of the information that I need.


    My Department currently has 1997 KME TL (102') that has an Elkhart sm2000 Fog tip on the monitor. We have run numerous flow evaluations with this current setup on my crew, and have proven time and again that this nozzle just does not give us the reach and penetration that we would like to see from an elevated master stream.


    I have gone to the Chief and suggested that we replace the fog tip with a smoothbore nozzle with tips of 1 1/4", 1 1/2" and 1 1 3/4", which we currently have off the old ladder truck. I know we won't be able to flow 1000 gpm with this set-up like we could with the fog but, my thought is that even with 800 gpm from the 1 3/4" smoothbore, reach, penetration and actual GPM on target would far surpass our current setup.


    Although he has not shot down my idea, he has asked me to come up with a comprehensive report on the pro's and con's of each nozzle. More or less I have to sell it to him before he will decide. Does anybody out there have any literature or information that I can use to try and convince the Chief?


    Any and all will be greatly appreciated


    First of all, reach and penetration is a must.

    Why not set up a demo and show the powers there, the reach od the soild bore tip vs. the fog tip. You can get a 2 inch smooth bore that flow 1000 and some change. The best be if you don't have a stream streightner which goes on the monitor and the tips fit on the other end will give a great flow.

    Too bad members get this mind set for heavy aerial streams has to be a fog where the solid bore does a better job for the reach and penetration operation.

    The fog nozzle has its place too.

    The best of two worlds is having duel monitors up in the platform!!

    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    FIREMECH1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    HUSKER LAND
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    Sounds like your Chief needs to be educated alittle concerning the differences of flowing water through a monitor vs a smooth bore.

    The main problem with a monitor is it is acceptably known that it could lose close to half of the water thrown at a big fire due to the extreme heat, and the water being droplets. The radiant heat will vaporize the droplets to steam, instead hitting the fire. You lose trying to get penetration. If it is windy, you also lose when using a monitor. If you've gone defensive, your wasting water and time with a monitor. It doesn't have the reach or power for a knock down attack. As well, there is a "wind" effect with a monitor. That "wind" effect can possibly cause the fire to spread to another area. Not good.

    As for changing over to a smooth bore, you can hit it hard with alot of water and gain reach, knock down, and penetration. You also don't have the loss of water on the target due to wind or radiant heat vaporization compared to a monitor.

    A 1 3/4 smooth bore may not flow as much as a monitor does, but it is more effective in getting the wet stuff on the hot stuff. And do install a stream straightener if you can.

    Our platforms are mounted with one of each. All straight sticks have smooth bores mounted, and have monitors if they want or need them.

    FM1
    I'm the one Fire and Rescue calls, when they need to be Rescued.

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF
    "Firemens gets antsies. Theys wants to goes to fires. Sometimeses they haves to waits."

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Sounds to me like this KME / LTI might be a rear mount. In my experience, these aerial platforms have a very high friction loss between the pump and the base of the aerial. If memory serves me correctly, there is a separate inlet directly to the ladder located on the rear. Try running a 50' - 3" or 50' of 5" from the officers side discharge around to the rear intake. use both the internal piping and the external hose line when feeding this platform at flows over 800 gpm.
    You need to do some testing of the losses in the rig. Put the 1 3/4" tip and shaper on the platform and set the basket at ground level. Using a pitot gauge have the pump operator increase discharge until you actually get 80 psi at the nozzle tip. Compare the pump discharge with the 80 psi. I can't find my notes from the aerial calss with Emporium, Pa, but my memory says it was almost a c=1 number. This means that the losses inside the aerial are approximately equal to the square of the flow in 100's of gpm's. A 1 3/4" tip is 813 gpm at 80 psi. Divide 813 by 100 and square the result so.... 8.13 x 8.13 = 66.09 and allow 20 psi for the device piping. So you will need an EP of about 166 psi to supply 813 gpm out the tip. If you were supplying the automatic nozzle, you would need about 184 psi at 800 gpm. By the time you reach 1,000 gpm you will need 220 psi of engine pressure to do the job. If your rig has a 1500 gpm pump, you will have a hart time reaching 1,000 gpm because the pump can not do both high volume and high pressure at the same time unless helped by higher incoming pressure (above 20 psi).

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Northwest Pa.
    Posts
    3

    Default

    Thanks guys for the replies. As far as setting up a head to head demonstration, I wish I could but, in order to place the Pipe on the monitor we need to purchase a 3 1/2"- 2 1/2" reducer. We do have a stream straightener, and I doubt it would cost a bundle to get a 2" nozzle so we could flow 1000 gpm. This is why the Chief needs/ wants a detailed pro's and con's report, so he can justify to the City Manager why we need to spend any money.

    KuhShise, yes it is a rear mount, with a 2000 gpm Hale pump.

    As far as Flows go, we have tested the rig with the Fog nozzle and have found, that through the pump, we need an EP of 240 and through the rear intake we need an EP of 190 to obtain 1000 gpm. I have asked the question of flowing through the pump as well as feeding the monitor from the rear from a different source in order to obtain higher flows. I was told that it was not a good idea due to the fact that the rear intake is also a discharge and that you would need both ends flowing at the EXACT same pressure in order for the water to to reach the platform. Is this correct?

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    590

    Default

    Engineguy51:
    Seems like you have done most of the work to determine the “C” for the aerial. Here is the table I would use for this apparatus running the automatic nozzle.

    500 gpm - 135 psi EP
    750 gpm - 180 psi EP
    1,000 gpm - 240 psi EP

    1 ¼” tip - 413 gpm - 105 psi
    1 ½” tip - 597 gpm - 130 psi
    1 ¾” tip - 813 gpm - 175 psi
    2” tip - 1,067 gpm - 240 psi

    Friction loss for this rig based upon your info seems a bit high, but for any flow desired, take the flow and divide by 100 and then square that number Lets say you wanted to deliver 700 gpm. 7 X 7 = 49 times the “C” of 1.4 and the loss inside the aerial waterway will be 68.6 psi. Then add in the nozzle pressure (Auto = 100) so EP needs to be 168.6 (170) plus the elevation pressure of ½ psi per foot. I suspect that when you stated the 240 EP for 1,000 gpm, it was with the nozzle in an elevated position. That is why I suggested the basket at ground level in my original post.

    I was suggesting that you simply run a line from another discharge on the aerial’s pump and parallel the internal plumbing in the rig, so technically it is not two separate sources (engines) supplying the aerial. Your information stating the rear inlet needed an EP of 190 psi did not specify a hose lay from the second engine to the rear inlet. If you could provide that information, then it is possible to back calculate and provide a second set of tables for running the hose line (3” or 5”) from the aerials pump discharge around to the rear intake.

    If you were to supply from both the quint’s pump through the truck piping, and from a second engine at a separate source into the rear, there would need to be a little co-ordination between the two pump operators. I would start both pumps out at say 150 psi and have the basket operator bring both up in tandem. It would not be absolutely necessary to have the exact same engine pressures on both rigs. We already know that it is possible to supply a Siamese from two separate sources on the fire ground, since this is a common practice when using two sources feeding a single engine. The aerial would be no different. Just be aware that it is possible to use one engine to force water backwards through the other source if the pump pressure on the second is allowed to fall too low. This can be a serious situation if one source is the municipal water supply and the other is river water.

    Put a cap and gauge on the rear inlet and provide a reading at that point with water flowing (known quantity) out the nozzle. Also a nozzle elevation if you have the basket elevated. This will provide a measure of the piping losses between the pump and the rear intake.

    Check this thread: http://www.firehouse.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115659 (Solid bore nozzle reach)
    Last edited by KuhShise; 08-17-2010 at 11:02 AM. Reason: Added reference thread

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EngineGuy51 View Post
    Thanks guys for the replies. As far as setting up a head to head demonstration, I wish I could but, in order to place the Pipe on the monitor we need to purchase a 3 1/2"- 2 1/2" reducer. We do have a stream straightener, and I doubt it would cost a bundle to get a 2" nozzle so we could flow 1000 gpm. This is why the Chief needs/ wants a detailed pro's and con's report, so he can justify to the City Manager why we need to spend any money.

    KuhShise, yes it is a rear mount, with a 2000 gpm Hale pump.

    As far as Flows go, we have tested the rig with the Fog nozzle and have found, that through the pump, we need an EP of 240 and through the rear intake we need an EP of 190 to obtain 1000 gpm. I have asked the question of flowing through the pump as well as feeding the monitor from the rear from a different source in order to obtain higher flows. I was told that it was not a good idea due to the fact that the rear intake is also a discharge and that you would need both ends flowing at the EXACT same pressure in order for the water to to reach the platform. Is this correct?


    What you could do and I have done it. Get the dealer for the brand of monitor you are using, Elkhardt or Akron and ask then if they have a reducer and a 2" tip that you can use to show the flow of the solid bore tips vs. the fog nozzle.

    Most dealers or company reps are happy to help you out. Not knowing how big your department is, but as for us we never hade a problem as most dealers and salesman for the company usually have loaners and are too happy to let departments use them to test with.

    You would be surprised on how the cost for those items are not that expensive.
    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

  8. #8
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EngineGuy51 View Post
    Thanks guys for the replies. As far as setting up a head to head demonstration, I wish I could but, in order to place the Pipe on the monitor we need to purchase a 3 1/2"- 2 1/2" reducer. We do have a stream straightener, and I doubt it would cost a bundle to get a 2" nozzle so we could flow 1000 gpm. This is why the Chief needs/ wants a detailed pro's and con's report, so he can justify to the City Manager why we need to spend any money.
    That is a $35 reducer. Dip into the popmachine can if it is needed (why?).

    Your local Akron/Elkhart/TFT regional reps should have a 3-1/2" stacked tip set on their truck. Akron is 3499 is 3-1/2" base with 2 1⁄4" X 2 1⁄2" X 2 3⁄4" tips. Intermediate and end threads are 2-1/2" which will allow you to stack other little tips if required.

  9. #9
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Northwest Pa.
    Posts
    3

    Default

    neiowa, you are correct, the reducer is amazingly cheap. I have considered purchising it myself or see if the Union would be willing to buy it, but I'm concerned with setting a precident like that. Still would not gaurantee we could use it if the Chief doesn't sign off on it.

    KuShise, when we ran our flow tests we used 100' of 5" hose, to supply the pump from another engine, and the same hose set up to supply the rear inlet from another engine. Neither was used at the same time, meaning we either supplied the areial through the pump or throught the rear, never at the same time. All was done from a municipal source. We do have a pressure gauge at the rear inlet, and we determined that, we needed 190 psi at the gauge to obtain flows of 1000 gpm with the fog nozzle. I hope this helps.

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    590

    Default

    EngineGuy: If you run 100 ft. of 5" from a large discharge to the rear, and open both the internal valve to the rig piping and the LDH valve, you should be able to drop the pump pressure to about 195 psi. It will be a whole lot easier on your pump / engine system. The water will divide such that the flow in the 5" will be about 735 gpm and the flow in the body piping will be about 265 gpm. There is a problem with using 5" line at this pressure...?? What pressure do you test your LDH at for the annual test? Anything above 180 or so should require high pressure LDH hose.

    If you run 50' of 3" from a large discharge to the rear inlet, then you will need about 207 psi PDP instead of the 240 psi you need to shove it all through the apparatus piping. It does make a difference with this apparatus. I believe that the small piping is intentional, to make sure no one overloads the basket with reaction force + live firefighter load. Attempting to reach flow rates above 1,000 gpm should cause the basket load to be reduced to one firefighter.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EngineGuy51 View Post
    neiowa, you are correct, the reducer is amazingly cheap. I have considered purchising it myself or see if the Union would be willing to buy it, but I'm concerned with setting a precident like that. Still would not gaurantee we could use it if the Chief doesn't sign off on it.
    ....
    Yeah, thats an "issue". Perhaps organize a pancake breakfast, spaghetti supper, tractor pull, send out fundraising letter, write a local grant. Like most of us out here in flyover country.

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber
    dmleblanc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Not the end of the earth but I can see it from here...
    Posts
    2,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptOldTimer View Post
    The best of two worlds is having duel monitors up in the platform!!


    Good idea! Whichever one wins the duel, that's the one you use!






    Yeah, I know I'm a smart*****.......
    Chief Dwayne LeBlanc
    Paincourtville Volunteer Fire Department
    Paincourtville, LA

    "I have a dream. It's not a big dream, it's just a little dream. My dream — and I hope you don't find this too crazy — is that I would like the people of this community to feel that if, God forbid, there were a fire, calling the fire department would actually be a wise thing to do. You can't have people, if their houses are burning down, saying, 'Whatever you do, don't call the fire department!' That would be bad."
    — C.D. Bales, "Roxanne"

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    CaptOldTimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 1999
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dmleblanc View Post
    Good idea! Whichever one wins the duel, that's the one you use!






    Yeah, I know I'm a smart*****.......


    Use both at the same time. If the truck, pump, waterway and everything else is designed to, no reason why both, Fog and Solid or maybe two solid streams going at the same time.

    There are plenty of apparatus photos around showing this operation.
    Stay Safe and Well Out There....

    Always remembering 9-11-2001 and 343+ Brothers

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,867

    Default

    I'm still not convinced dual monitors are valid. Look at the issues flowing a single gun on most aerials. Our single Solid stream requires 210 psi a the inlet to get 1250 out the tip at full height. First one must spec a high flow internal relief valve as it seems many come through with 200 psi as the relief. Next you have to ensure your hose is rated for the supply pressure. We run attack rated 5" LDH just on the tower for these operations, but that limits us to a hand stretch back to the engine. In areas where typical LDH rules the supply beds, exceeding 200 psi will be difficult without lots of thought and planning. Remember dual guns but a single waterway will not make flowing 2000 gpm easy. It would seem that only on properly plumbed quints would this even remotely be viable.

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Jonnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    I will post this and let it speak for its self.


    `
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Jonnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Two more rigs having duel monitors on platform.
    Attached Images Attached Images   

  17. #17
    Let's talk fire trucks!
    BoxAlarm187's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    3,325

    Default

    We're at the factory this week for final inspection on one of our new towers (see below). We've been doing dual monitors for years on ours. Our tower ladders are dry, so we always have a pumper supply us through the BIV on the rear, so pump-to-aerial plumbing isn't an issue for us.


    Also, to the OP, I'd really encourage you to make contact with the local dealer and/or distributor for the nozzles you're interested in. Get them to not only loan you the nozzle(s) and accessories you need, but have them help with the demo. We've found that our local distributor has been great to work with over the years, and even though we're a large department, we've seen them eager to work with small departments also.
    Career Fire Captain
    Volunteer Chief Officer


    Never taking for granted that I'm privileged enough to have the greatest job in the world!

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    FIREMECH1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    HUSKER LAND
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    Our Sutphen tower/platforms also have a dual discharge with a monitor and smooth bore installed. Intake flow isn't a problem with the 400psi green 5" LDH. Pressure relief valve is set to 250psi. They also have a spare of each in the bucket if they need to change over.

    FM1
    I'm the one Fire and Rescue calls, when they need to be Rescued.

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF
    "Firemens gets antsies. Theys wants to goes to fires. Sometimeses they haves to waits."

  19. #19
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,867

    Default

    Jonnee: Sorry but in this case a picture isn't worth a 1000 gpm. From a picture we cannot tell if you're flowing two 600 gpm guns or what the flow is. With an onboard pump and adequate supply maybe you can flow both guns at 1000 gpm. Without the pump such as Box187 notes, one must wonder what the true capacity of the waterway is?

    FIREMECH 1: How do they supply dual guns at 250 psi? Two 1500 gpm engines? Without two engines, even if you're right on the intake with your engine, what's the actual capacity of the pump at 250 psi? While some places are likely to be dialed in on these operations, I'm betting many aren't.

    Then even if it's possible, with some significant added expense, ask why? On a big defensive job, would 2000 gpm from one gun be more advantageous than two 1000 gpms? I'll bet yes. Short of protecting a taller direct exposure, guns aiming downward are basically just cutting down the time on scene. If the roofs open and you're pouring water in, the buildings gone. Far to often we see tons of aerials raining water down onto roofs (testing the shingles) or pushing fire from one side to the other.

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    FIREMECH1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    HUSKER LAND
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    ^^^^ I don't have an honest answer for you, but I wish I did.

    I don't go to their training Ops, so I don't know what they do. As well, I don't know enough about fire tactics to give you an honest answer.

    I know that all the aerials are now supplied with the 400psi LDH so they can push the water safely over the standard 200psi hose. Reason, in a round about way, was so they could push up to 250psi through the water way.

    As for pump ratings, they are split pretty evenly between 1,500 and 2,000gpm pumps. About 30 in all.

    As for going defensive on the platforms, I'm not sure if they use both, change over to dual smooth bores, or just use the one smooth bore. I'm guessing it depends on the scene and surrounding structures.

    Thanks, now I have a headache.

    FM1
    I'm the one Fire and Rescue calls, when they need to be Rescued.

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF
    "Firemens gets antsies. Theys wants to goes to fires. Sometimeses they haves to waits."

  21. #21
    Forum Member
    Jonnee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FIREMECH1 View Post
    ^^^^ I don't have an honest answer for you, but I wish I did.

    I don't go to their training Ops, so I don't know what they do. As well, I don't know enough about fire tactics to give you an honest answer.

    I know that all the aerials are now supplied with the 400psi LDH so they can push the water safely over the standard 200psi hose. Reason, in a round about way, was so they could push up to 250psi through the water way.

    As for pump ratings, they are split pretty evenly between 1,500 and 2,000gpm pumps. About 30 in all.

    As for going defensive on the platforms, I'm not sure if they use both, change over to dual smooth bores, or just use the one smooth bore. I'm guessing it depends on the scene and surrounding structures.

    Thanks, now I have a headache.

    FM1

    Nothing said they both platform monitors can't be flowing at the same time. In fact we do it regularly as if you look at our Pierce 95 ft mid mount with the duel platform monitors, both can and usually do get into service at the same time. We may in fact use the solid bore to penetration and reach and the fog on a water curtain operation or we remove the fog nozzle and put an 1-3/4" or a 2" tip on its place.

    If you have the water supply and engines dedicated to supply the truck, actual flowing over 2000 per minute can and is done.

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    FIREMECH1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    HUSKER LAND
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    I've seen them use both the smooth bore and the monitor at the same time. The smooth bore was used hitting the fire, while the monitor was used as a protective curtain to protect the building next to it.

    FM1
    I'm the one Fire and Rescue calls, when they need to be Rescued.

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF
    "Firemens gets antsies. Theys wants to goes to fires. Sometimeses they haves to waits."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Junior FFs are Firefighters
    By mtfirejunior in forum Fire Explorer & Jr. Firefighting
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 08-08-2007, 04:19 PM
  2. Where's Fyred????
    By ChicagoFF in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 427
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 11:53 AM
  3. SUPREME SACRIFICE - 12/22
    By ChiefHank in forum The Supreme Sacrifice
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-20-1999, 06:22 AM
  4. SUPREME SACRIFICE - 07/09
    By ChiefHank in forum The Supreme Sacrifice
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-05-1999, 05:24 AM
  5. SUPREME SACRIFICE - 12/22
    By ChiefHank in forum The Supreme Sacrifice
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-23-1998, 05:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register