Thread: Dump valve brands, styles?
12-15-2000, 11:07 PM #1BossmanFirehouse.com Guest
Dump valve brands, styles?
I'm looking to equip our department's 5000 gallon Mack K-500 water tender (formerly a USAF jet fuel tanker) with a 10x10 or 12x12 dump valve. I'm only able to find info and prices on the Newton products. What other brands are there? What styles are there and what are their advantages? What are some sources of dump valves? How do I address expressions of concern regarding ease of shut-off? Man, I am one confused dump valve customer!
12-16-2000, 12:47 AM #2Rick1403Firehouse.com Guest
Stockton is a additional manufacture of dump valves. We have 2 International 2000 gal. tankers (tenders) with 3 dump valves. One left, rear, and right. The only time We use the rear dump is when we are setting up the port a tank, otherwise we use just the side dumps. We are looking at adding air extensions to the dumps, one switch to open and close the valve, and extend and close the chute. We are also considering replacing the valve with a full swing type to decrease the offload time.
The larger the dump you can install the shorter the offload time will be, and consider a valve that will swing completley out of the way, cost more but decrease the offload time.
Most all fire truck dealers should be able to supply you with the valves, you may want to install them yourself.
Is your former fuel truck baffled? If not it may pose some risk to drive. we have a policy that the trucks are driven full or empty, nothing inbetween.
What is your refil time like? We are looking at adding a 6" pipe with 5" storz connection to the top of the hatch to decrease the refill time from a pumped source. 1-5' LDH storz to the 2 1/2" side tank fills takes about 90 seconds to fill.
We carry 2 1/2" draft hose with jet siphons to allow the tankers to fill themselves from static sources. We also carry floating pumps that will produce 150 gallons a minute on our tankers.
We are looking at adding a third tanker to our fleet. ISO gives the most credit for tankers in groups of 3. 1 filling, 1 dumping, 1 inbetween on the road. The more tankers you have that are the same size the better, different departments will have different size tankers and port a tanks. You might want to check with your neighbors.
Just some thought we have found out the hard way. Rural firefighting means how many gallons you can deliver, and sustain.
Be safe. Rick
12-16-2000, 05:50 AM #3BuckFirehouse.com Guest
///ISO gives the most credit for tankers in groups of 3. 1 filling, 1 dumping, 1 inbetween on the road.///
I thought ISO took the fill time and the dump time and calculated the travel time using their formula and add those together which gives your total time. Then take your tank size subtract 10% and take that number and divide by total time to give you the gpm attainable for that truck.
Where did you get the rule about the most credit for tankers in groups of 3 ?
Why can't you have more that one tanker dumping or filling at one time?
///The more tankers you have that are the same size the better, different departments will have different size tankers and port a tanks.///
Are you telling me that it is better to have three 2000 gal tankers than say one 2000 gal tanker and two 3000 gal tankers?
What is so bad about having different size dump tanks along as they will all connect together?
Don't get me wrong standardization is a good thing but don't tell people it's better to have all the same size stuff when it isn't always the case.
Each area is unique.
What may work for you may not work for them.
12-16-2000, 04:20 PM #4ChiefDogFirehouse.com Guest
Square Dumps are the way to go to get the water off quickly.... but what is the GVWR of the Truck? You really need to look at that closely. Fuel weight is about 6.X lbs per gallon and water is 8.33 lbs per gallon. 5000 gallons means 5000+lbs more weight with water vs. Fuel. Most trucks are spec'ed to do the job originally intended not something you want to do afterwards. You may be creating a maintenance and safety nightmare by overloading.
12-16-2000, 05:26 PM #5jemarFirehouse.com Guest
ON THE WEB AT firstname.lastname@example.org
12-17-2000, 07:55 PM #6rbfFirehouse.com Guest
I agree with Chief Dog about your GVWR. You could be extremely overweight on your axles, suspension or tires. The expense to correct the GVWR may not be worth it.
Your dump times will also be affected by the tank venting. Insufficient venting will slow your dump and fill times just as much as the size of your dump valves. Most fuel tankers had smaller vents since the fuel would be pumped off at a slower rate, or had the lids on top of the tank that you could open manually. In a tanker shuttle, you do not want to send someone onto the top of the truck to open a large vent.
12-17-2000, 08:11 PM #7DDFirehouse.com Guest
A fire company in our county used to have a 5,000 gallon former airport fuel truck that they tried to use as a tanker. It was fine on flat roads. The problem is that we are in hilly country. The drive train would not stand the pulls on the hills and the added weight from changing from fuel to water. The axles of the drive wheels would break. They got rid of it. Make sure that your's is designed for the task that you plan for it before you sink much money into it.
12-28-2000, 09:27 PM #8Rick1403Firehouse.com Guest
The comment I made about the most credit for tankers in groups of three is a direct quote from the ISO inspector when he was here in 1997. After checking the guide book, we have the 1980 edition, you are right about the time/distance formula.
If you missed the part about "some thoughts" on tanker shuttles, that is just what they are. They are not rules to live and die by. If you have lots of room, yes you can gang up the port a tanks. If you have the room, yes you can set up multiple fill sites. Not everyone has the room to accomplish those items.
If you are filling a 2000 gallon and a 4000 gallon tankers with the same source, the 4000 will take twice as long to fill. If both have the same size dump valves, the 4000 will take twice as long to dump, that is if you have the room to dump the 4000.
The problem we have run into is running tankers shuttles and adding the odd size tanker, and having the timing thrown out because of the odd size tanker. The odd size can be too big or too small.
The other problem we have run into is different size draft hose and fittings. Not all trucks carry the same size or the same type of threads. That is why I suggested contacting others in the area to see what they are using. Better to preplan than to wait too late.
Again just some thoughts, not rules.
12-28-2000, 10:38 PM #9LHS*Firehouse.com Guest
One thing for sure, you won't find any fire departments with a Class 6 or better using 2000 gallon tankers, those grades are all the relm of big tankers, the departments who really know something about water movement. If you want a 7 or worse use small tankers.
01-09-2001, 11:54 AM #10SWIPPFirehouse.com Guest
I beg to differ with LHS. There are many depts. that know something about water movement that wouldn't have a "big" tanker. Most depts. in this area have nothing larger than 2000 gals with 3500 being on the top end. Narrow driveways, steep hills, small farmyards, and winding roads are not kind to large tankers. 2000 gals. in the right place is alot more useful than 5000 gals stuck partway up a hill somewhere or in the shop. I have 25 years in the fire service and have yet to see the firegod ISO at a fire scene. Do not disregard all depts. that have different requirements for their areas.
01-09-2001, 01:53 PM #11LHS*Firehouse.com Guest
///I beg to differ with LHS.
Beg all you want, there isn't a single FD in the entire US with a Class 6 or better using 2000 or smaller tankers.
In simplest terms they may know something about moving water, thier just not doing it and they can only flow 10 to 25% of what is needed for the fire flow in their area.
Eventually the fire will burn down to their size.
// There are many depts. that know something about water movement that wouldn't have a "big" tanker. 3500 being on the top end.
What do you call a 3500 gallon tanker, small? I think that is big. 2000 tanker on a 1 mile each way shuttle at best will move 300 gpm (typically 66 to 99 gpm is what is credited nationally. A 3500 will flow 450 gpm (credited 99 to 139 nationally) and I've seen some move 566 gpm.
All fire trucks are within 5 inches in width of each other.
Trust me, you don't have any hills even close to what the rest of the world lives with. Our 2500 gallon tanker will climb a 67 degree slope all day.
We got small and large farmyards
//winding roads are not kind to large tankers.
Never been a problem, they get school buses down them, garbage trucks, cemet mixers, dump trucks, hay trucks, milk tankers, that 3500 galon tanker yo were talking about, etc and in almost all cases the fire department pumper truck is larger. You only need to do it what a few dozen times a year?
Don't recalll anyone talking about 5000 gallon tankers. So how are differing with me?
//have yet to see the firegod ISO at a fire scene.
No, but the building code and NFPA and ISO all agree on how much water. The building will burn at the rates predicted. So if you can't meet the fire flow, it doesn't matter if IS0 is there or not, the die is cast, you'll run out of water and/or not achieve the needed fire flow to do the job.
Thank god there is an some disinterested party (ISO, non-fire department)because someone needs to conduct a fair test. As a nation we do a lousy job of meeting any minimum standard. Check out this chart
Class Communities in U.S. % of FD's
1 42 0.095%
2 306 0.068%
3 1,150 2.5%
4 3,066 6.8%
5 5,429 12%
6 7,169 15.9%
7 6,800 15.1%
8 3,943 8.7%
9 15,563 34.6%
10 1,403 3.1%
The above lists communites with water systems. 1/3 of which have the worst grade poosible, in other words they meet 10% of the water, fire department and communications needs of their departments set by NFPA. 87% of the FD's don't even score 50%. A class 9 means you can squirt 50 gpm for 6 minutes.
Now let's talk rural grades. Of the 44,000 FD's a grand total of 400 have something other than the worst grade. In other words they cannot even prove they can flow 250 gpm. In your state 133 have 7's, and 8's and 2844 with 9's. Either the Class 9's are real good or losing their tail on every fire. That leaves the rest of the US with 5 departments per state that can move 250 gpm. With only one is in Texas. Only 9 FD's anywhere have ever scored better than a Class 5, a 50% score. Only ten FD's can meet all the fire flow requirements of their district nationwide. Two are Class 3's without hydrants. In other words the best 2.5% of all FD's in the US with or without hydrants.
Obviously, our ability as a fire service to judge our abilities isn't proven out by an outside auditor. It seems fair to me if the building code calls for 750 gpm for a house, that wthe FD should have to prove every 10 to 15 years what percentage of that we can achieve. With 44,470 fire departments with the ability to only squirt 50 gpm or less for 6 minutes, it appears we've got a long way to go.
You hear discussion like:
"oh we've got a quint with 500 gallons and we run a 2000 gallon tanker along with it."
Then you ask, "how much can you squirt on the fire and not run out before the next station gets there and what do they bring?"
"Well they are 5 miles down the road. Are they on automatic aid or do you have to call them? 50/50 each way.
So to drive 5 miles takes 10 minutes. So 2500 gallon - 10% for venturi in the tank and not being fully filled or spillage leaves 225 gpm. Does the next station bring enough water to continute to sustain 2250 gpm? Most case no.
A few weeks ago Bucks home FD was flowing 2250 one mile. In 10 minutes that flow was calculated to 3500 gpm plus. That was in front of the auditor from your state. He'll be the second FD in Texas to get a real water supply grade. Scotts FD was first.
So if you never see an ISO grader at a fire, you're not gettting over on anyone, you're just keeping rates higher than they should be for everyone. That means they are paying 3 or 400% more fire for protection than they should. Instead of investing in your FD they are buying a Lincoln for the insurance guy because the FD can't pass the water movement test.
The choice is yours a whole bunch of small tankers in each station or a large one that can get around your area, climb hills, isn't any wider than the small tankers and is just a bit longer
//Do not disregard all depts. that have different requirements for their areas.
Disregard a Class 9 or 10 fire department ME? Are you crazy? What is their to ive them credit for? They feel good about being an FD but have little or no firefighting ability.
Well, if you were differing with me, it gets down to what you said, //There are many depts. that know something about water movement that wouldn't have a "big" tanker. // Actually, there are 400 out of 44,870. Most of those have a Class 7 or 8 ratings and pay really high insurance. And have limited firefighting ability.
Now if you'd said bridges were a limiting factor, I might have suggested what we did, identify them, put them on a dispatch alert, locate routes around them, lay hose, fix them, etc.
//Sauk City WI//
You are listed as a Class 5 city where the hydrants are (In the top 22% of all FD's). As soon as yo go 1000 foot from a hydrant you drop to a Class 9 (bottom 37% ofall FD's). As soon as you go outside of town you drop to a Class 10 (97% of the FD'shave a better grade). It seems yo've got the worst grade possible you can move 50 gpm but once you're out of town you can't move 50 gpm.
There is one very very inmportant rule to improving ones ISO grade, Don't Take Advice From A Department With A Class 9 and Never From A Class 10!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like you said, "there any many departments who know something about moving water" They just don't apply it. Only eight tenths of one percent of the Nations FD's have done anything about it and proved it. We better hope the public never finds out we are misrepresenting a real fire department. Use whatever size tanker you care to use but do something a Class 9 or 10, Please!
01-12-2001, 04:08 AM #12BuckFirehouse.com Guest
Fire departments that are capable of moving large amounts of water utilizing a tanker shuttle are some very rural depts. But there is a major difference between them and the rest of the depts that can't move water worth a damn.
THEY PREPLAN ALL OF THE AREAS OF THEIR DISTRICT!
If you have areas that are tight and not much room then plan on a way to get water there. Some way, some how there is a way.
You also said it takes twice as long for a 4000 gal tanker to fill compared to a 2000 gal tanker.
That is not always true. Depends on the fill ports on the tankers.two direct tank fills compared to one,Etc.
But let's say the configuration is the same and we are filling at a rate of 1000 gpm. Now, since you seem to know so much about ISO, let's use their tanker fill evolution.
Drive 200',stop and hook up hoses and start filling.
T-2000 - 20 seconds
T-4000 - 20 seconds
T-2000 - 2 minutes
T-4000 - 4 minutes
Break hoses and drive 200'
T-2000 - 20 sec
T-4000 - 20 sec
T-2 - 2 min 40 sec
T-4 - 4 min 40 sec
Tanker 2000 total doubled is 5 min 20 seconds
Seems like I have saved 40 seconds.
Now you say it takes twice as long for a 4000 to dump compared to a 2000.
As before that is not always the case. My truck might have a big air vent compare to your 2000 or my baffles my be optimized or I might have a tilt body to increase dump times.
But lets say everything is identical. I will have more head pressure and my water will dump at a faster rate.
Drive time according to ISO can not be changed. But let's look at it from a different perspective. I was smart and made sure when I speced out my tanker I wouldn't come up short on the horsepower and got a really big motor and had it geared for optimal performance so I might be able to take off faster than you and climb hills better. I also got the best braking system on the market and I can stop faster.
So hands down I can move more water.
01-28-2001, 10:29 PM #13PZLFirehouse.com Guest
did some say we were talking about dump valves??
02-02-2001, 09:54 AM #14OdieFirehouse.com Guest
Contrary to some of the postings, an ISO rating of Class 6 or better can be obtained by departments that operate smaller size tankers.
Our department obtained a Class 6 almost 20 years ago, and the largest tanker we had was 2000 gallons. Currently we operate attack engines with 1250 gallon tanks and tankers with 1800 gallon tanks.
We operate from six stations, each having an attack pumper as described above. Three of the stations operate with the 1800 gallon tankers, one station has 1500 gallons, and two have second pumpers with 1000 gallon tanks. All are equipped with jet dump.
Along with our neighboring fire district, we were the first two departments in South Carolina that depend on rural water supply practices to obtain an ISO Class 6.
As to the dumps, we use jet assisted systems equipped with Betts valves and 5" Ames irrigation couplers. In my experience with the square dumps, I have found that both the Newton and the Stockton work well.
02-02-2001, 04:15 PM #15LHS*Firehouse.com Guest
The ISO paperwork list a combination of hose, drafting and shuttles. Not exactly a shuttle grade. It also lists distances the grade applies.
Am I missing something? When you go over to State Farm, All State, etc. Read back to us what it says in their books for your FD.
02-06-2001, 10:39 AM #16BossmanFirehouse.com Guest
I really was just asking for some advice on dumpvalves. I,m glad I wasn't asking for help putting out a fire.
02-06-2001, 11:24 AM #17LHS*Firehouse.com Guest
//I really was just asking for some advice on dump valves.
1) Ok, I'll restate everythig for you. Newton, AH Stock, Northline and Zico build all the worlds dump valves that are square. Every company who builds a valve make round ones.
2) People on these forums are going to respond not only to the original post but every post in response which is what they did.
///I'm looking to equip our department's 5000 gallon Mack K-500 water tender (formerly a USAF jet fuel tanker).
3) Your truck is dangerously over weight and you could get someone killed withit.
4) With a 10x10 or 12x12 dump valve.
It is nice you want to put a valve on it, but if you were reading everyone was trying to explain performance. Does performance matter to you? Do you have a 5000 gallon drop tank? I bet you hve n ISO class 9/10 fire department so performance should matter. Everyone on this forum uses 10 and 12 inch duimps on much smaller tankers. If you want a world beater in the way of performance, 10 and 12 inch dump is the wrong size unless you plan on putting 3 on the back and or sides. But you said you were going to put just one on.
//What styles are there and what are their advantages?
5) a 10 inch square valve has 25% more aea than a round valve. If the tank is properly vented and baffled which won't be an issue on your non-NFPA tanker you'll get perfect performance. Zico gets out of the water way and the Newton does not. So Zico should always win.
//How do I address expressions of concern regarding ease of shut-off?
6) They are all manual or electric or air. All easy to control.
//I,m glad I wasn't asking for help putting out a fire.
That is exactly what you want to do with your dangerous firetruck.
A good "bossman" would make the vehicle safe first.
02-06-2001, 02:16 PM #18BossmanFirehouse.com Guest
I greatly appreciate the information in the last reply. Newton is made by AH Stock, Zico is pricy (about 2X, but looks much better made), but Northline is a great lead for me. To restate, however, means to state again.
On an unrelated matter, the State of Texas distributes tankers to rural FDs for use carrying water, yet mentions no hazard (I double checked) associated with doing so with these trucks. Fully loaded, this truck handles like a sports car, but we still use our policy or driving all our fire trucks at least 5 mph under the speed limit. Three years of service have seen no problem with this truck's operation. It does suprisingly well off-road for a big truck. If anyone has a chance to get a K-500, I would certainly check with their state's authorities to make sure that this truck (or any other) is safe. No one should operate a vehicle 10,000 lbs. overloaded. For determining safe practices for a vehicle's operation, information specific to that particular vehicle should be obtained, ignoring generalities made by people unfamiliar with technical data for that situation. Some folks may have a picture in their mind of another situation altogether.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)