消防自動撒水系統管路配置之研究

The study of piping layout for fire protection automatic sprinkler system

李東霖(Tung-Lin Lee)

指導教授 ： 張寬勇

國立臺北科技大學/工程學院/土木與防災研究所/碩士(2006年)

https://doi.org/10.6841/NTUT.2006.00135

摘要

消防工程在設計階段，通常以自動撒水系統最為複雜，撒水系統會因保護場所的危險等級、場所高度、場所種類、周遭溫度、設置位置等因素，而改變設計因子。故設計者須選擇適當的設計參數與設備等級，使系統在作動時可發揮其最佳的滅火功效。
本論文是以台灣、大陸、美國的自動撒水系統設計原則為切入點做比較分析，再以樹狀(Tree)、環狀(Loop)、網狀(Grid)三種不同的配置模式為基礎及選定三種不同危險等級，輕度(Light)、中度(Ordinary)、重度(Extra）危險場所，並歸納二大類撒水頭（標準/快速反應型為一類；大流量型為一類），建構十五種研究模型做為分析單元。並經由水力計算軟體（HASS）的驗證，驗證設計值是否在符合規範的基礎上構成經濟化之設計，並應用成本分析軟體取得十五種研究模型的材料與工資成本，並以成本為基礎做三種不同管路配置模式間的比較分析。
最後以驗證結果來強化並突破台灣消防工程設計者的慣性與迷失，當執行自動撒水系統設計時，不應拘泥於樹狀配置模式及管徑規格法，應藉由軟體驗證與應用，獲得最佳化及最經濟化的設計模式與結果。由本論文研究結果得知在中度危險等級場所及重度危險等級場所，不論使用之撒水頭為標準型或為大流量型，據成本面的經濟考量，其成本最小的管路配置模式為網狀，與國內慣用的樹狀模式不同。在材料成本方面，網狀較樹狀便宜約25.8﹪~44.4﹪，在工資成本方面，網狀較樹狀便宜約9.5﹪~18.5﹪，在總成本方面，網狀較樹狀便宜約14.1﹪~25.2﹪。由此可知，當保護對象為中度或重度危險等級場所時，網狀的配管模式確實為消防工程設計者的最佳選擇，乃為本論文最大的意義所在。

關鍵字

自動撒水系統 ； 管路配置 ； 水力計算 ； 成本分析

並列摘要

The fire control project is the usually most complicated by automatic sprinkler system during the course of designing, because classification of occupancies , place height , place kind , environment temperature of place , set up position ,etc. factor, and those factor affect design way. So designers must choose the proper design parameter and grade of equipment , enable the system to give play to its best efficiency of fire suppression .
The initial point of thesis is to make comparative analysis of sprinkler system design principle among Taiwan, mainland and U.S.A.. Secondly, to establish arborescent (Tree)、ring-type (Loop)、netted (Grid), three kinds of different piping layout as the foundation and to select three kinds of different hazard occupancies which are slight (Light)、moderate (Ordinary)、serious (Extra) type, and to sum up two sprinkler head types which are standard /quick response type for one kind; The large drop type for the other kind, conclude above components to build 15 kinds of research models to make the analysis unit. Then verified via hydraulic calculation software（HASS）, to prove the design on the basis of specification is economic design or should be modified. And use the cost analysis software to obtain the material and labor cost of 15 kinds of research models. Finally, make comparative analysis among three kinds of different piping layout based on cost.
Finally, to strengthen and break through the inertia and stray of the fire fighting engineering designer of Taiwan by verifying the result, when carry out and design automatic sprinkler system, should not adhere rigidly to tree type piping layout and pipe schedule method, and should verify and apply with the software, in order to obtain optimization and the most economic design and result. From the result of thesis , we learn that sprinkler system protect target is ordinary hazard class or extra hazard class, no matter sprinkler head is standard type or large drop type, considering according to cost, its lower cost as grid type piping layout, are different from domestic and habitual tree type piping layout. In material cost, the grid type is more cheap than the tree type about 25.8 %~ 44.4%, in the cost respect of the man-hour, the grid type is more cheap than the tree type about 9.5%~18.5%, in total cost, the grid type is more cheap than the tree type about 14.1%~ 25.2%. Therefore, it is at protection target for ordinary hazard class or extra hazard class place, in fact, the grid type piping layout is the best choice by fire fighting engineering designer. The result is the greatest meaning of thesis.

並列關鍵字

sprinkler system ； piping layout ； hydraulic calculation ； cost analysis

參考文獻

[10] Factory Mutual Engineering Corporation, FM Standard 2-89 / Pipe friction loss tables, 1973.

[14] NFPA13, Standard for the Installation of the Sprinkler Systems, National Fire Protection Association, 2002, pp 28、35、200、293-296、299-300.

[1] Andy Buchanan, Fire Engineering Design Guide, New Zealand: Centre for Advanced Engineeing University of Canterbury, 2001, pp. 21、105.

[2] Factory Mutual Engineering Corporation, FM Standard 2-2 / ESFR Sprinkler, 1995.

[3] Factory Mutual Engineering Corporation, FM Standard 2-2* / ESFR Sprinkler for 40-ft buildings, 1995.