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

Forward-Flow From Hose Valves Over FDC?

10/11/2021

13 Comments

 
So the issue of "forward-flow testing" of the backflow preventers has come up a lot as of late, at least here in Massachusetts. More and more design drawings are calling for "provisions" to forward-flow test the backflow preventer. I've seen multiple ways of doing this and I'm curious as to which method is best.

One method I see is adding a bypass around the FDC check with a normally-closed butterfly valve in it. This allows you to open the butterfly valve when you want to test the backflow preventer and flush through the FDC piping.

The other method I see is to extend the manifold and install a couple hose valves to use in testing.

My personal opinion is that if you have the ability to run the hoses outside, use the second method. The reason for this is that if each zone has a control valve, you can shut off the sprinkler system while flushing and not introduce any of the debris in the underground into your system. By doing it the other way with the bypass, you have to mess with the FDC, and if the FDC is fed from anywhere on the system other than the end of the manifold, you can introduce debris into your system.

Is this a better approach?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
13 Comments
Alex
10/11/2021 06:26:17 am

Hi Anonymous,

There is nothing in NFPA 14 that states one method is better than another. From my own opinion, I agree that minimizing the amount of water running through the system is best. I’ve added a hose valve to the end of my manifold multiple times to provide a means to forward-flow the backflow preventer.

I’m curious to see what others have to say.

Thanks,
Alex

Reply
Craig Hanson
10/11/2021 08:11:21 am

As a former fitter who is now an Inspector and plans reviewer. I will say the easiest way to do the forward flow test (its only done every 5 years) is to take a pup piece of piping the same size as the check valve and swap them out and test through the FDC. you will also have to take the FDC siamese off but that's no problem. This is a lot better than dragging hoses up a stairwell and connecting to the combo standpipe hose bibs and a lot less messy with no tripping hazards for residents.

Reply
Jessica Lutz
10/11/2021 10:16:58 am

This is a great solution, as long as the FDC is easily removeable.
Many contractors prefer FDCs with snoots in walls, and/or internal clappers.

Reply
chad
10/12/2021 07:37:12 am

The issue with that is, it requires the tester to reverse the check valve when he is done. As me how I know this gets left that way.... Laziness, mistakes etc. get in the way of this being fool proof. The bypass valve around the check with a tampered valve, at least its supervised.

Reply
Randy Kimbro
10/12/2021 03:03:34 pm

As an AHJ, the forward flow test is required ANNUALLY and usually done as part of the annual sprinkler inspection (NFPA 25 (2017) 13.7.2. MeyerFire had a great article about this in 2018:
https://www.meyerfire.com/blog/solutions-for-the-overlooked-forward-flow-test

Starting with NFPA 13 (2019) 16.14.5.1.1 the ability to perform the forward flow test must be hard plumbed; "serviceable without requiring the owner to modify the system to perform the test.

The FDC hydrostatic test is done every 5 years. NFPA 25 (2017) 6.3.2.

Reply
Jack
10/11/2021 08:46:12 am

In the 80 s , when you bought a bfp, they included hose valves to test it.
Due to competitive pricing, and the “ rules “ not forcing to forward flow them, the inclusion of the valve(s) seemed to drop.

Reply
CJ Bonczyk
10/11/2021 09:04:09 am

Personally if possible I like to eliminate the amount of wall penetrations as much as possible. I will make the main drain large enough to accept full flow of the backflow and tie the flushing connection into that. Then any ancillary drains (fdc ball drip, main drain, inspectors test, etc.) into a large drain manifold and make a single penetration. Thus you would have possibly only a FDC wall penetration and drain penetration. If the backflow flushing connection required is too big I just try to create a multi hose valve test connection on the manifold.

Reply
Jesse
10/11/2021 10:12:57 am

I once had the CEO of a Fortune 500 tell me, "it doesn't matter who pays the green fees, just that the green fees get paid".

In my professional life, I took that to mean that there are numerous ways to achieve the outcome needed, and how we get there needs doesn't need to be the same way for every situation.

Several AHJs in my area are hitting this as well. And I think the solution is project dependent. All of these are good options.

Reply
Dave
10/11/2021 10:48:23 am

For comparison, whether the backflow is inside the building or out in the yard, we spec incorporating full forward-flow test valves as part of the riser manifold assembly, starting with a normally closed butterfly w/tamper switch* , THEN to the required quantity of 2-1/2" hose valves, penetrating the wall. Like CJ, I'm not a big fan of additional wall penetrations, but this is our preference. If this does not result in the hose valves penetrating safely into a service yard, if theft might be an issue, or in certain education or healthcare situations, I will keep the hose valves inside the riser room with the hose discharges directed towards the riser room door to the exterior and hopefully they bring intact hoses. Where theft might be an issue, I've seen 2-1/2" grooved caps installed through the wall with loose grooved hose valves supplied in the riser room. I've also seen low-bid sub just install a capped shaped nipple on the manifold and say there is your "means" - Not good.
Despite all this effort, unfortunately my local AHJ's still haven't been enforcing this testing requirement.

* For proper tamper operation it must be specifically a normally-closed model such as the Vic 707C, Tyco BFV-300C (black-handle), Reliable N.C. BFG-300, etc., and make sure the fitter knows the difference.

Reply
Mike
10/11/2021 10:57:49 am

I've designed downstream test manifolds similar to fire pump test headers.

I think what's important is the estimator needs to preplan this with the designers and incorporate that into the bid to prevent arguments if they win the job.

Reply
Bruce Seiler
10/11/2021 01:03:22 pm

We have done many of the comments above. I personally do no like utilizing the FDC. As mentioned above, in order to gain the full flow from the outlet, you need to removed the FDC unless it is a Storz Connection. I like the idea of connecting the test discharge to the a drain existing the building. We do this as part of our standpipe system testing where we upsize the drain and utilize that to discharge the water outside.

Question. What type of equipment is everyone using to perform this test?

Reply
Anonymous
10/12/2021 05:01:55 pm

"Question. What type of equipment is everyone using to perform this test?"

I'm curious, too, because in my experience, enforcement of this requirement has been rare. However, I have seen Hose Monsters used to measure flow, it seems most contractors I know have them. I've seen specs that require in the process, measuring and recording pressures upstream and downstream of the backflow to verify the backflow pressure loss, but correct me if I am wrong, this was never NFPA's intent; system demand and exercising the backflow being the primary goal.

Reply
David
10/13/2021 05:22:51 pm

Most of the time I see the main drain sized to accommodate the system demand, or an FDC bypass is used (only one outlets flows because of clapper though). I use a pitot gauge to measure the flow.

The problem I come across is that many of the fitters in my area don't cary the equipment (hoses, hose monsters, etc) to conduct the test during system acceptance. Can really ruin the landscaping if it hasn't been planned for.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    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 June '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 850
    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

    July 2025
    June 2025
    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