Thread: Gal water pipe sizes

Originally Posted by Stustoys

So my (crazy?) idea of a sprinkler inside a water tank to spray down the insides and keep the section above the waterline from melting isn't likely to work either then...

I think it will work as long as the tank is kept clear of anything that can burn. But I would put the sprinkler on top of the tank to wet the outside. Remember these systems are primarily designed to keep the gutters and timber decks wet to prevent ember attack. They won't save your house from the flame front.

Here's the butterfly I used. I had to order them in. Also a report on EWSS's that might help you.

The document that Jack620 linked to dates back quite a long way. Current thinking (in my state at least) seems to be a little less enthusiastic about sprinkler systems for bushfire protection. Here's a link to a current document published by the Tasmania Fire Service on this subject. http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/userfiles...eet_060120.pdf
My own feeling are that sprinklers are probably about the third line of defence at best after environmental controls (defendable space and vegetation management) and building controls (no ember traps, bushfire shutters, managing combustible materials). Naturally, any sprinkler system is only as good as its water supply and pumping system, so make sure that you have this well sorted, (either petrol/diesel pump or generator to run your electric pump and a separate water supply to your drinking water and dedicated fire fighting water supply).
Current regulations in Tasmania require water tanks for fire fighting to be either concrete or galvanised iron construction as fiberglass and poly have been proven to not withstand the heat of a bushfire, so I would can the idea of sprinklers inside your water tank.
If you have a well prepared property and wish to put the cherry on top so to speak, then sprinklers may have some merit, but there are other measures that will provide better value by far if you are in the earlier stages of preparing your property.

Originally Posted by jack620

My worry with impact sprinklers is they need a fair bit of pressure to do their thing. Will you have enough pressure to drive a heap of them? My system has 21 butterflies.

Well the testing so far hasn't involved 21 butterflies! But I will certainly keep an eye on it.

Originally Posted by jack620

Posting my pics reminded me what a nightmare it was installing my system. If you can handle the look of gal pipe on the outside of your roof, I would definitely go with that.

Well thats not what I want to hear. It was looking pretty good for awhile there lol
With quick look at the numbers poly was either cheaper or bigger pipe size for the same money.
The look of a single pipe running along the ridge would be no biggy, but if things get a lot more complicated that that there maybe some push back.

Originally Posted by jack620

I think it will work as long as the tank is kept clear of anything that can burn. But I would put the sprinkler on top of the tank to wet the outside. Remember these systems are primarily designed to keep the gutters and timber decks wet to prevent ember attack. They won't save your house from the flame front.

The tank is clear but it would be the closest thing to any bush. Hey something has to be.

Originally Posted by Karl Robbers

Naturally, any sprinkler system is only as good as its water supply and pumping system, so make sure that you have this well sorted, (either petrol/diesel pump or generator to run your electric pump

Pumps, well that depends on the above, i.e. just what flow/pressure I end up needing.
I have 3 house pumps (of sizes I cant recall, in fact if I had to guess I'd say 3 different sizes lol)
6.5hp twin impeller pump.
A 2ish Hp electric pump
3 generators.

Originally Posted by Karl Robbers

a separate water supply to your drinking water and dedicated fire fighting water supply).

Yeah not going to happen. Well not exactly. I have 2 tanks(three if you count the one on the shed). But I can hook them up pretty much anyway.

Originally Posted by Karl Robbers

Current regulations in Tasmania require water tanks for fire fighting to be either concrete or galvanised iron construction as fiberglass and poly have been proven to not withstand the heat of a bushfire,

Yeah we are getting pretty good when it comes to spending other peoples money. Everything is going to fail sooner or later. I hope there is some thing that lets someone have a poly tank if there is no bush for 400m or some such. There is some pretty crazy stuff going on in Vic re power lines.

Originally Posted by Karl Robbers

wish to put the cherry on top so to speak,

It really is a cherry. As I understand it the place was defended by a CFA volunteer(the owner) during the black saturday fires with a bath full of water, a couple of steel buckets and a mop.(not 100% sure when or if power lost so may have had a garden hose).

Of course that's no guarantee, but what is?

Will get SHMBO to print that off pdfs tomorrow and have a read. I hate reading on a screen. Might have to get me an eread thingy-m-bob ones of these days.

I doubt the requirement for a concrete or gal tank applies to a home made EWSS. As an EWSS is not mandated in a bushfire zone, I fail to see how the government can impose requirements on its construction. If you already have a poly tank full of water to defend your home against ember attack, I reckon you'd be a fool not to use it.

Originally Posted by jack620

I doubt the requirement for a concrete or gal tank applies to a home made EWSS. As an EWSS is not mandated in a bushfire zone, I fail to see how the government can impose requirements on its construction. If you already have a poly tank full of water to defend your home against ember attack, I reckon you'd be a fool not to use it.

I possibly did not explain that point clearly enough. Since the Dunalley bushfires in 2013, the requirements for the already mandated dedicated firefighting water supply, (typically 10,000L with access for fire appliances and 64mm storz coupling fitted), were updated to require new dwellings to install only galvanised or concrete tanks for this application due to the numerous failures of poly and fiberglass tanks - even those that were full at the time. Existing dwellings were not required to change or upgrade their water tanks. Poly and fiberglass are still acceptable for other purposes, just not as dedicated firefighting water supplies on dwellings constructed after 2013 in Tasmania.
You are correct that this regulation does not apply to an EWSS, however, if you were setting up a system from scratch, it would seem prudent to operate to best practice and run the EWSS from a supply separate from your dedicated firefighting supply and to also utilise concrete or galvanised tanks if extra tanks were to be installed.

Originally Posted by jack620

I fail to see how the government can impose requirements on its construction. If you already have a poly tank full of water to defend your home against ember attack, I reckon you'd be a fool not to use it.

Oh they can find all sorts of ways to force people to spend money and/or have policies that cost people money.
But I'm not sure this is the place for that discussion.

Originally Posted by Karl Robbers

I possibly did not explain that point clearly enough. Since the Dunalley bushfires in 2013, the requirements for the already mandated dedicated firefighting water supply, (typically 10,000L with access for fire appliances and 64mm storz coupling fitted), were updated to require new dwellings to install only galvanised or concrete tanks for this application due to the numerous failures of poly and fiberglass tanks - even those that were full at the time. Existing dwellings were not required to change or upgrade their water tanks. Poly and fiberglass are still acceptable for other purposes, just not as dedicated firefighting water supplies on dwellings constructed after 2013 in Tasmania.
You are correct that this regulation does not apply to an EWSS, however, if you were setting up a system from scratch, it would seem prudent to operate to best practice and run the EWSS from a supply separate from your dedicated firefighting supply and to also utilise concrete or galvanised tanks if extra tanks were to be installed.

I'd be interested in having a read about these tank failures if you have a link handy. I know pretty much nothing about fiberglass tanks(nor care as I don't have and am unlikely to have one). The poly tank "failures" I am aware of only failed to the waterline, which as I see it is a non issue. But then a poly that has truly failed will have next to no water in it so will be,(I guess) at best, somewhat flat so for the most part will go unnoticed.

There may be something in the 2013 Tasmanian Bushfires Inquiry http://www.dpac.tas.gov.au/__data/as...iry_Report.pdf I only had a quick look.
I can possibly fill in a few blanks based upon what I have been told by those living in the area, those fighting the initial blaze and the resultant discussions that were had the Tasmania Fire Service as an organisation.
As has been the case with mainland fires, the weather conditions played a large part in the ferocity of the fire and the location of Dunalley added its own special touch to the mix.
The initial fire started on Thursday the 3rd January 2013 at around 2:00 PM outside the town of Forcett. Weather conditions were not at all favourable and in hot conditions and fanned by strong winds, the fire escaped containment lines the following afternoon and continued intensifying until the 6th January when the coastal town of Dunalley was impacted in the afternoon. Over 80 structures were destroyed or severely damaged that afternoon. The fire was a fast running fire and the fuel load in the area was very high, being composed of a mix of open grassland and scrub. The fire was an extremely hot one and was creating its own weather conditions to some degree and there was a massive convection column heading up into the atmosphere, the likes of which are normally only seen on hot forestry regeneration burns. As mentioned, Dunalley is a coastal town, this led to an interesting phenomena. When the fire front got close to Dunalley, the superheated convection column met the cool sea air and collapsed. Speaking to one local who was there during the fire, I was told that they knew the fire was going to impact their town, but they were well prepared (or so they thought) and despite the smoke blocking out the sun and being under heavy ember attack, they were pretty comfortable in stay and defend mode. Suddenly, dead birds began to fall from the sky and then everything around them was on fire. This was the moment when the convection column collapsed and the superheated gasses came back down to ground level. As a gauge of just how hot the conditions became, the Dunalley Fire Truck had the suction line for their portable pump melted while it was still stowed on top of the appliance.
What I hope to convey, if I haven't bored you to death with the lengthy description of the conditions, is that this fire was hotter and more intense than most. In the aftermath, investigation and clean up, it was noted that there weren't too many Poly or Fiberglass tanks that survived, while concrete and Galvanised tanks did survive. As can be appreciated, when an event such as this occurs, numerous organisations and individuals will demand action to prevent it happening again. There is an argument of course that this was the one in a million set of conditions and that it is conceivable that there could be a set of conditions in the future that could destroy even concrete or Galvanised tanks. As a result of these findings, the regulations for building in bushfire prone areas were changed to mandate Concrete or Galvanised tanks for your dedicated firefighting water supply, however that rule would apply only to new constructions. I believe that Poly tanks are still acceptable if buried.
I am surmising that the heat may have softened the poly to the point where the internal pressure from the water may have caused them to rupture. I'm not sure that I would like to be trying to utilise that water to fight fire in those condition to be honest.
Perhaps most amazing was the fact that despite a couple of very close shaves, no life was lost on that day.

Thanks for that. I couldn't find anything in there.
I went looking else where and came up with this.
https://www.bushfirecrc.com/sites/de...hfires_0_0.pdf
Now its 2007, but the testing for what its worth should hold.
I haven't read it all by a long shot but it would seem the failures they got were well into the worse case scenario. I'm not so sure having 10k in a steel tank would have saved the house next to it in those conditions anyway.


" numerous organisations and individuals will demand action to prevent it happening again."
Yes so one of the things governments tend to do is look around for something that wont cost them many votes or any money, then come up with a plan to put it on new home builders knowing that there aren't enough votes there to worry them much. "See we are doing something" They feel this is so important that we should have a approved water tank in 50% of houses in what.... 40 years*? Granted it maybe better than doing nothing which governments are also good at. Yet at the same time the road sides look like a firewood pile because that's what the local council wants.

*yes that is a wild assed guess

Stu if you want or need to you can use my macson to cut the threads on the pipe, it has taper turning att. Spindle bore is a bit under 2" and should be able to fit a 6.5mtr length into it but would have to check..

Originally Posted by shedhappens

and should be able to fit a 6.5mtr length into it but would have to check..

Surely the least you can do John is cut a hole in your shed wall?

Goog thinking Chris, or maybe if stu drilled a hole in the right spot it would serve to support the end of the pipe

Thank you Shed, Will keep you in mind if it comes to that. I do have a cheap set of dies but I haven't used them so have no idea if they are up to the job or not.