Comments on: Forward Flow Test

By: Chuck Riesterer

Chuck Riesterer — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 14:52:11 +0000

I’m sure he means the installer, or manufacturer’s rep (or other authorized persons), would be opening the device up to inspect for a cause for the problem. The AHJ should not even consider touching a device for liability reasons. ALWAYS have qualified personnel onsite to operate valves and make the appropriate corrections, if needed. Two goals: Compliance & Proper Operation.

By: chopsnrox

chopsnrox — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:58:54 +0000

I’m very glad I witnessed a forward flow test…..the contractors found no water pressure after opening all the valves…….turns out a sub-contractor for the city failed to open a few sectional valves on one of the city mains after making a repair for an unrelated hydrant…potentially, no one would have known of this problem until, hopefully the main drain test was done a year later!!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:11:55 +0000

Take it apart? And what then? Do you have any experience with these devices or does it just sound like a good idea to “take them apart”?

By: Michael O'Brian

Michael O'Brian — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 00:00:21 +0000

Brian, there are a couple options, they can utilize an existing connection on the end of a main, they can remove the check valve on the FDC (replace it when done), and test through the FDC. The key is during plan review to mention on an existing system there needs to be an upgrade

By: Brian Batten

Brian Batten — Mon, 07 Nov 2011 23:22:06 +0000

How do you recommend testing (if any) on an existing system where the sprinkler contractor has changed sprinkler heads to meet a higher density demand. The existing system did not have any means to test foward flow of the back flow preventor.

By: Michael Saade

Michael Saade — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 20:07:02 +0000

I would like to make a comment in regard to Mr. Dove’s comment. I agree with Mr. Dove that backflow prevention devices are not needed to protect potable water systems just as he states. Also, it is required by NFPA codes and standards that equipment used in water-based fire protection systems be LISTED. To my knowledge, backflow preventers are not listed but only CLASSIFIED as to water flow characteristics and the strength of body. Backflow preventers, to my knowledge, have not been tested or listed for the rigors of a fire department’s pumping operations applying high pressures to the fire line and the backflow device is used as a check valve. I would like to hear other opinions on this and if there are any backflow prevention devices that are listed, I would like to know that also. I appreciate the opportunity to express a concern I’ve had for a long time. Sincerely, M.J. (Mike) Saade – Fire Protection Engineer & Fire Inspector for the State of Georgia

By: Roger

Roger — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:32:24 +0000

This was added in the 1996 NFPA 13 in section 8-2.6 The backflow prevention assembly shall be forward flow tested to ensure proper operation. The minimum flow rate shall be the system demand, including hose stream demand where applicable. The requirement was also added to the 2007 NFPA 24 in section 10.10.2.5.

By: Brian Dove

Brian Dove — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 12:31:19 +0000

It is also interesting to note that the IPC ignored AWWA recommendations regarding backflow and required their installation on sprinkler systems. AWWA Manual 14 does not recommend that they be installed on fire sprinkler systems and they recognize that the Alarm check valves required by NFPA 13 (Wet and Dry Pipe) are sufficient for protection of potable water.

In the State of Mississippi, State law stipulates that Backflow IS NOT required on Low Hazard Connections and specificially lists wet and dry pipe sprinkler systems as being exempt from backflow requirements. It does require them if there is nonpotable cross connections such as antifreeze loops and pumps taking suction from non potable sources. State Law went a step further and prohibited any political subdivision in the state from adopting or enforcing any law or policy that is more stringent than the State Law thereby negating IPC requirements for Backflow on wet and dry pipe sprinkler systems.

I am not a big fan of these devices as you may have noticed. They do have their place but my experience with these devices is that they never are maintained and tested for the use they are intended to serve and they are unreliable when connected to fire sprinkler systems and especially so when placed on lines serving fire hydrants.

We had one installed on a resort complex and when we went to do annual fire pump testing we could not achieve light hazard flow from the system. The connection was one block away from the city’s well.

We had another one installed on private fire service mains and could not achieve 4 head criteria on a 13R system nor could we achieve any usable fire flow from the hydrants serving the apartments. The city main serving this private system system was at a 10 inch/12 inch circulating main crossroads.

So I am not a big fan of these and this article is good in that it points out the need is positively there to not only install the testing means, but fire inspectors do need to enforce the testing provisons of these devices.

By: Insurance LC Rep

Insurance LC Rep — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:24:28 +0000

Existing system if you can flow water that is close to the demand, then great, if not flow as much as you can. What I look for is they place calibrated gauges on the device and then compare the flow to the loss the mfg of the devise says it should be. Say you can flow 500 gpm and the mfg says at 500 gpm the loss should be 4 psi, if they get 4 psi great, if it is 8 psi, time to take the device apart.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:45:04 +0000

Insurance LC Rep
Great continuation of the article, with the NFPA 25. One the items that NFPA 25 brings up is the follow up forward flow test beyond the initial acceptance test. Even NFPA 25 says forward flow test at design flow, how do you interpret that?