Determination of Fire Hose Friction Loss Characteristics

11
4

Rubbe r  Thr u The  W e ave A ve r age
Material  and  Forming Method Maximum
Minimum

P olyur e thane  Ex tr ude d

Liner Material and Forming Method – 1.5-inch Hoses.

from the average. The number of tests is noted for each
and Forming Method.

16.0 23 8
14.0

12.0

C‐Factor [psi/(gpm2ft)] 10.0

—— Page D-4 —— 8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0

A ll Rubbe r  Ex tr ude d Rub

Hose  L ine r  M

Figure D.3. Plot of Friction Loss Factor, C, by Hose L

Note: Error bars shown as the first standard deviation f
Hose Liner Material a

A ve r age
Maximum

7 Minimum

7
1

bbe r  Thr u The  W e ave P olyur e thane  Ex tr ude d Polyur e thane  Thr u The  
W e ave

Material  and  Forming Method

Liner Material and Forming Method – 1.75-inch Hoses.

from the average. The number of tests is noted for each
and Forming Method.

2 .5 17
2 .0
1 .5 6

—— Page D-5 —— C‐Factor [psi/(gpm2ft)] 1 .0

0 .5

0 .0

All Rubbe r  Ex tr ude d Rub

Hose  L ine r  M

Figure D.4. Plot of Friction Loss Factor, C, by Hose L

Note: Error bars shown as the first standard deviation f
Hose Liner Material a

A ve r age

4 Maximum

Minimum

1
6

bbe r  Thr u The  W e ave P olyur e thane  Ex tr ude d Polyur e thane  Thr u The  
W e ave

Material  and  Forming Method

Liner Material and Forming Method – 2.5-inch Hoses.

from the average. The number of tests is noted for each
and Forming Method.

0.25 10
0.20
0.15 3

—— Page D-6 —— C‐Factor [psi/(gpm2ft)] 0.10

0.05

0.00

All Rubbe r  Ex tr ude d
Hose  L ine r  M

Figure D.5. Plot of Friction Loss Factor, C, by Hose

Note: Error bars shown as the first standard deviation f
Hose Liner Material a

3
4

A ve r age
Maximum
Minimum

Rubbe r  Thr u The  W e ave P olyur e thane  Ex tr ude d
Material  and  Forming Method

Liner Material and Forming Method – 4-inch Hoses.

from the average. The number of tests is noted for each
and Forming Method.

0.10

0.09 10
0.08

—— Page D-7 —— C‐Factor [psi/(gpm2ft)] 0.07 2
0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

All Rubbe r  Ex tr ude d Rub

Hose  L ine r  M

Figure D.6. Plot of Friction Loss Factor, C, by Hose

Note: Error bars shown as the first standard deviation f
Hose Liner Material a

1
3

4

A ve r age
Maximum
Minimum

bbe r  Thr u The  W e ave P olyur e thane  Ex tr ude d P olyur e thane  Thr u The  
W e ave

Material  and  Forming Method

Liner Material and Forming Method – 5 inch Hoses.

from the average. The number of tests is noted for each
and Forming Method.

APPENDIX E – MIDDLESEX COUNTY FIRE ACADEMY
FRICTION LOSS STUDY PROCEDURES

—— Page E-1 ——

—— Page E-2 —— Proce
Middlesex County, N.J. Fire A

June 1–

Project Techn
Developing Friction

for Modern

Sponso
Fire Protection Res

Quinc

edures
Academy Friction Loss Study
–3, 2011

nical Panel for
n Loss Coefficients
n Fire Hose

ored by
search Foundation
cy, MA

—— Page E-3 —— Fire Hose on Loan f
June 1–

Proce
Middlesex County, N.J

June

from Manufacturers
–3, 2011

edures
J. Friction Loss Study
2011

—— Page E-4 —— Instrume

Instruments Courtesy Cottrell Associate
Test Appliances Courtesy Task F

Proce
Middlesex County, N.J

June

entation

es, Inc. – CombatSupportProducts.Com
Force Tips & Kocheck Company

edures
J. Friction Loss Study
2011

Determining In

—— Page E-5 ——

Avg. wall thickness times 2

Proce
Middlesex County, N.J

June

nside Diameter

Subtract from outside diameter

edures
J. Friction Loss Study
2011

—— Page E-6 —— Proving & Calib

Checked against tra

Proce
Middlesex County, N.J

June

bration – Daily

aceable instruments

edures
J. Friction Loss Study
2011

Typical LDH Friction

Elevation change <1 ft. – water temp. ± 75 deg. F

Note: two unrecorded tests conducted with hose formed in “U

—— Page E-7 ——

n Loss Test Layout

F. recirculated from facility impoundment lagoon.

U” – Inlet and outlet side-by-side – no change in pressure loss.

300 ft. Measured Flow
avg. ± 20” one psi increments

Inlet Breach Recorded data…confidential

Diameters 2.5

—— Page E-8 —— Identical instruments inlet & outlet.

Adapter 2.5” to 1.5” to 1”

Proce
Middlesex County, N.J

June

5” through 1”

Flow meter gets approximate flow, then use
pitot at test monitor for precise flow readings.

.Turbine flow meter ± 10 -20 gpm

edures
J. Friction Loss Study
2011

—— Page E-9 —— Proce
Middlesex County N. J. Fire Ac

June 1–

Approximately 144 individual FL tests of twenty-five, 300

Thanks to MCFA staff from Count

edures
cademy – Friction Loss Study

–3, 2011

ft. hose samples. Hose provided by hose manufacturers.

ty Fire Marshal, Michael Gallagher

APPENDIX F – LESSONS LEARNED BY THE
CONNECTICUT FIRE ACADEMY

—— Page F-1 ——

Lessons Learned From Hose Testing For Fire Protection Research Foundation
In order to have continuity between the tests we chose to use the deck guns supplied by Task
Force even though we have deck guns mounted on our drill ground. Secure the deck guns and
then secure them again.

We did have one gun flip over before we added the pipe.
When measuring the 300’ length of hose we did include the couplings on the inside section
although the chart noted inside of coupling to inside of coupling. On 50’ lengths 5 couplings
would be included and on 100’ lengths 2 couplings would be included.

—— Page F-2 ——

Use small bleeder valves to adjust static pressure to 10 psi to make the adjustment much easier.

Have available a supply of short lengths of hose to get a more laminar flow into the manometers
and flow meter.

—— Page F-3 ——

Use a couple of folding tables to hold all the small parts and a place to write etc. Have portable
radios available to communicate.

When the large diameter hose stretches it can push on the points of least resistance which in our
case was the short lengths of 2 ½” hose causing kinks. Try to secure the end of the LDH with
straps to limit its movement.

—— Page F-4 ——

We only performed the outside hose measurement on the 10 psi test missed on the others which
we didn’t discover until inputting the final data. Had reviewed all the forms but only
remembered measurement for the first test.
Use city water if available so there are no surfactants in water from other fire drill operations
such as foam drills etc.
We received two new 5” manometers from Kochek after the testing was done but these should
probably be incorporated in the next tests as the hose section units were weeping slightly when
the testing was being performed.
The flow meter was difficult to use on most hose sizes other that the 2 ½” as low flows gave
poor readings and for larger hose we would have only had a reading from as little as ¼ of the
flow, so although all should be equal the final number would have been a calculation at best.
We used a fixed pitot for any configuration we could to again keep consistency versus a hand
held reading.
We laminated the anticipated flow cards which are included with the materials to determine pitot
readings as paper and everything else in a 100’ radius will be wet at one time or another.
If anyone has questions on the mechanical side of this project give a call; we will try to help.

—— Page F-5 ——