MeyerFire
  • Blog
  • Forum
  • TOOLKIT
    • ALL TOOLS
    • BUY THE TOOLKIT
  • UNIVERSITY
    • ALL COURSES
    • JOIN THE UNIVERSITY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE PREP SERIES
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
    • TOOLKIT-ONLY LOGIN
    • UNIVERSITY LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • JOB OPENINGS
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT
Picture

A Pitot Pressure Greater than Static Pressure?

2/14/2025

19 Comments

 
I have a project for which someone else did the flow test for me. At the test hydrant, I have a static of 69 psi and a residual of 64 psi at an elevation of 238'.

​According to the
information I was given at the flow hydrant, I have a static of 24 psi and a pitot of 25 psi at an elevation of 308'. With a coefficient of .90, they show a flow of 839 gpm.

My question is - do you think it is acceptable to use a flow test showing a pitot reading higher than the static read at the same hydrant?


Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
Picture
19 Comments

How to Create Flow Test "Artificial Drop" of 10%?

6/26/2024

14 Comments

 
I am coordinating a flow test with a contractor.

NFPA 291 Section 4.4.6 states "To obtain satisfactory test results of theoretical calculation of expected flows or rated capacities, sufficient discharge should be achieved to cause a drop in pressure at the residual hydrant of at least 10 percent. In water supply systems where additional municipal pumps increase the flow and pressure as additional test hydrants are opened, it might be necessary to declare an artificial drop in the static pressure of 10 percent to create a theoretical water supply curve."

The contractor did not achieve the 10% pressure drop and asked if the "artificial pressure drop" option is a possibility here. I do not see anywhere in NFPA 291 or elsewhere explaining how to do this.

Any recommendations on what to advise the contractor / how to even calculate the artificial pressure drop?

Thanks in advance.


Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
14 Comments

Use Boundary Conditions in Lieu of Flow Test?

4/17/2024

7 Comments

 
In a recent project, I asked for hydrant flow test results from the civil engineer, and I received Boundary Conditions instead.

Is there a way of using this information to validate hydraulic calculations?

An example of Boundary Conditions given to us: Demand = 18.54 gpm (1.17 L/s), HGL = 463'-11" (141.41 m), Pressure = 64.1 psi (442 kPa).

Thanks!


Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
7 Comments

Can a Hydrant Flow Test Use Only One Hydrant?

11/29/2023

15 Comments

 
Can a hydrant flow test (for the purposes of a fire sprinkler design) be conducted using a single hydrant?

If so, how is this actually done? Is it recommended?

Thanks in advance.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
15 Comments

Is Flowing One Outlet in a Flow Test Acceptable?

5/30/2023

13 Comments

 
During a recent site visit, I conducted a 2-hydrant flow test with the assistance of a city engineer and the fire department.

The static pressure measured at one hydrant was 84 psi, and then I proceeded 650 feet downhill to the actual flow hydrant, where the pitot pressure was recorded as 70 psi.

A question arises due to the city's reluctance to test additional fire hydrants. My boss believes that testing more than one outlet is necessary to achieve a residual pressure drop. However, the city claims that their water distribution system is looped and, therefore, does not anticipate any pressure drop.

As a result, we are unable to calculate consistent numbers on a graph.

Additionally, we have come across information suggesting that there should be a 15 to 25% drop from static to residual pressure.

Is this a compliant approach? Should we be opening up more than one outlet on the flowing hydrant?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
13 Comments

Benefits/Reasons for Flow Tests vs. Modeling?

9/14/2022

16 Comments

 
Most cities require fire flow tests before design and calculation of a sprinkler system, but I have dealt with a few cities that instead use a water modeling system to calculate the pressure and flow at certain locations.

What is the reason for this?

Are there benefits or downsides to one or the other?

Is one more accurate?

Thanks in advance - appreciate the input.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
16 Comments

Second 2.5" Outlet on Same or Different Hydrant?

9/13/2022

11 Comments

 
When conducting flow tests and the desired flow (gpm) for the test is not obtained via a single 2-1/2" fire hydrant outlet, should additional flow be achieved by opening an additional 2-1/2" outlet on that SAME fire hydrant, or should a single 2-1/2" outlet be opened on an ADDITIONAL fire hydrant?

So for multiple 2-1/2" outlets opening and flowing, should this be done:
  • (A) using one fire hydrant with two 2-1/2" outlets flowing, or
  • (B) with two fire hydrants with one 2-1/2" outlet flowing each?

I have heard people say that (A) is correct and (B) is incorrect, and vise versa. Thank you.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
11 Comments

Which Hydrant to Flow for Well-Gridded Supply?

3/24/2022

10 Comments

 
I'm quite familiar with conducting hydrant flow tests, NFPA 291, and have read articles such at the Sprinkler Age article from Feb. 2018. And I know the residual hydrant should be between the hydrant(s) to be flowed and the large source mains for the area.

But in terms of a specific project site (especially if the underground is well-gridded), would you chose the hydrant closest to your project to be the static/residual hydrant, or would you select the flowing hydrant to be closest to your project (and adjusting the static/residual for any elevation difference)?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
10 Comments

Discharge Coefficient for Hydrant With 45-Elbow?

6/22/2021

4 Comments

 
When we run hydrant flow tests, we usually use both 2-1/2" side-outlets of a typical dry fire hydrant. We hook up one, threaded, swivel 45-elbow on each side to divert water in a direction that won't destroy anything.

What is the appropriate Coefficient of Discharge when measuring the pitot on the centerline of the elbow?

Traditionally flowing straight out of the side outlet of a hydrant, NFPA 291 gives three Coefficients (0.90, 0.80, and 0.70) based on how the outlet projects into the barrel. NFPA 291 also states that a coefficient of 0.85 is suggested for stream straighteners, unless the coefficient of the tube is known.

Is there a known Coefficient for a single 45-degree elbow?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
4 Comments

Is Pitot the Same As Residual on Flow Test?

12/27/2019

6 Comments

 
Fire hydrant flow test question - is the pitot the same as the residual pressure on a water flow test from a fire hydrant?

Is it possible to know the residual pressure and 'chart out' the flow of the fire hydrant, or is there a way to determine the flow with only the static and residual pressures?

​​​Posted anonymously for discussion. Discuss This | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
6 Comments
    SUBMIT A QUESTION
    Picture
    Why Sponsor?

    ALL-ACCESS

    Picture
    GET ALL OUR TOOLS

    SUBSCRIBE

    Subscribe and learn something new each day:
    I'm Interested In:

    COMMUNITY

    Top April '25 Contributors
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    SEE LEADERBOARD

    YOUR POST

    SUBMIT A QUESTION

    PE EXAM

    Get 100 Days of Free Sample Questions right to you!
    SIGN ME UP!

    FILTERS

    All
    A1171
    ABA
    ADA
    ASCE 7
    ASME A17.1
    ASTM E1354
    Blog Thread
    Daily Discussion
    Design-documents
    EN 12845
    Explosion Protection
    Explosion-protection-prevention
    Fire Detection And Alarm Systems
    Fire Dynamics
    Flammable And Combustible Liquids
    Flammable-combustible-liquids
    FM Global
    Human-behavior
    IBC
    ICC 500
    IEBC
    IFC
    IMC
    IPC
    IRC
    ISO
    Means Of Egress
    NBC
    NFPA 1
    NFPA 10
    NFPA 101
    NFPA 11
    NFPA 110
    NFPA 1142
    NFPA 1221
    NFPA 13
    NFPA 13D
    NFPA 13R
    NFPA 14
    NFPA 15
    NFPA 16
    NFPA 17A
    NFPA 20
    NFPA 2001
    NFPA 214
    NFPA 22
    NFPA 220
    NFPA 24
    NFPA 241
    NFPA 25
    NFPA 291
    NFPA 30
    NFPA 307
    NFPA 30B
    NFPA 31
    NFPA 33
    NFPA 37
    NFPA 400
    NFPA 409
    NFPA 415
    NFPA 45
    NFPA 495
    NFPA 497
    NFPA 5000
    NFPA 502
    NFPA 54
    NFPA 55
    NFPA 654
    NFPA 68
    NFPA 70
    NFPA 701
    NFPA 72
    NFPA 75
    NFPA 770
    NFPA 82
    NFPA 855
    NFPA 90A
    NFPA 92
    NFPA 96
    NICET
    OBC
    OSHA
    Passive Building Systems
    PE Prep Guide
    PE Prep Series
    PE Sample Problems
    Poll
    Smoke Management
    Special Hazard Systems
    UFC 3-600-01
    UFC 4-021-01
    UFC 4-211-01
    UPC
    Updates
    Water Based Fire Suppression
    Weekly Exams


    ARCHIVES

    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016


    PE PREP SERIES

    SEE LEADERBOARD

    RSS Feed

Picture
​Home
Our Cause
The Blog
The Forum
PE Exam Prep
The Toolkit

MeyerFire University
​Pricing
Login
​Support
Contact Us
Picture

MeyerFire.com is a startup community built to help fire protection professionals shine.
Our goal is to improve fire protection practices worldwide. We promote the industry by creating helpful tools and resources, and by bringing together industry professionals to share their expertise.

​MeyerFire, LLC is a NICET Recognized Training Provider and International Code Council Preferred Education Provider.

All text, images, and media ​Copyright © 2016-2025 MeyerFire, LLC

We respect your privacy and personal data. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. 
The views, opinions, and information found on this site represent solely the author and do not represent the opinions of any other party, nor does the presented material assume responsibility for its use. Fire protection and life safety systems constitute a critical component for public health and safety and you should consult with a licensed professional for proper design and code adherence.

Discussions are solely for the purpose of peer review and the exchange of ideas. All comments are reviewed. Comments which do not contribute, are not relevant, are spam, or are disrespectful in nature may be removed. Information presented and opinions expressed should not be relied upon as a replacement for consulting services. Some (not all) outbound links on this website, such as Amazon links, are affiliate-based where we receive a small commission for orders placed elsewhere.

  • Blog
  • Forum
  • TOOLKIT
    • ALL TOOLS
    • BUY THE TOOLKIT
  • UNIVERSITY
    • ALL COURSES
    • JOIN THE UNIVERSITY
  • PE Exam
    • PE Forum & Errata
    • PE Store
    • PE Tools
    • PE PREP SERIES
    • PE 100-Day Marathon
  • LOGIN
    • TOOLKIT-ONLY LOGIN
    • UNIVERSITY LOGIN
  • PRICING
    • SOFTWARE & TRAINING
    • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • JOB OPENINGS
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT