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 Old Questions
  • LOGIN
    • TOOLKIT-ONLY LOGIN
    • UNIVERSITY LOGIN
  • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • JOB OPENINGS
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT
Picture

How Many Hose Valves for Fire Pump Testing?

10/6/2023

9 Comments

 
NFPA 20 dictates the number and size of hose valves according to the pump rating, but is there any specific requirement on how many are to be used during testing?

How is that determined?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
9 Comments
Anthony
10/6/2023 07:59:43 am

Should use one 2 1/2'' hose per 250 gpm.

Reply
Jesse
10/6/2023 08:07:43 am

All of them.

Since we base the number of outlets on the test-header for the rated capacity of the pump, all of them should be used. One 2.5" outlet per 250-GPM for the pump. So a pump rated for 750 will have 3, a 1,500 will have 6, etc.

Reply
PEter
10/6/2023 08:14:21 am

Not quite. NFPA 20, 2016 Table 4.27A specifies the number of hose valves. It is a common misconception that it for every 250 GPM of the pump a hose valve is provided. For example: 1,250 GPM, 1,500 GPM and 2,000GPM all require 6 hose valves.

In answer to the original question, there is no prescriptive requirement in NFPA 25 on how many hose valves you need to have open to meet the flow requirements to test the fire pump. Generally speaking, you would typically flow the number of hose valves present. However, if you can achieve the flow and pressure requirements through a smaller number of hose valves you have proven the pump is performing as required and that is the only requirement of the test in NFPA 25.

Reply
Glenn Berger
10/6/2023 08:17:43 am

The above answers are correct. But here is a slightly different answer - As you work your way through the required flow rates during the test procedure then more hoses / hose valves are required.

The basic reason is that you do not want the pressure drop in the hoses to become a factor and thereby strew the test results.

Reply
Mike
10/6/2023 08:51:27 am

As Peter mentioned above there is no explicit requirement. If you're using long hoses you'll want more valves to keep friction loss in the hoses in check etc. We actually had a client fire pump tested 1 year out and fail only to end up looking rather bad because our "big" test trailer with 6 outlets was in use elsewhere so they only used 3 outlets to test a 1500 gpm pump and it was creating excessive restriction. After some back and forth our tester went back out and tested with 6 hoses and lo and behold the pump worked fine. We had some other issues on that job but between those and the bad test I think we lost that customer which is disappointing to say the least.

Reply
Dan Wilder
10/6/2023 09:06:38 am

Interesting...maybe someone from NFPA 20 can chime in

Best guess based on some deep Friday morning googling...

Rule of thumb is 250GPM per 2½" hose valve (more inline with standpipe testing than anything empirical but I'm sure there is some paper out there explaining why) ...but to test a 1000 GPM pump at 150%, you'll need to push out 375GPM per hose valve....so there's that.

Second thing to consider is the range of the Pitot gauge being used. Ideally, the midpoint of that gauge is the most accurate but use of the gauge within the middle 50% is preferred so you may need to do some backwards math based on your available equipment.

NFPA 291 wants Pitot pressures above 10PSI when fire hydrant testing but has a much larger discharge allowance..

I've Cx'd pumps with just over half the provided hose valves (throttling at the individual valves) and others have required all of them fully open (throttling at the interior butterfly valve) and I could not tell you what the determining factor was...

Because of a past experience that involved on the fly math, a crappy internet looking at submittals and charts, with lots of eyes during a test that wasn't gong well, I make up a small excel spreadsheet with each point on the curve I'm trying for along with multiple variations of # of hose valves and their corresponding pitot pressures to provide the flow needed.

Reply
Greg Rayno
10/21/2024 05:01:03 pm

I always used that rule of thumb as well but recently had a pump rated at 750 gpm with six hose valves. Why?

Reply
Franck
10/6/2023 10:14:59 am

You need enough to test the pump up to 150% of its nominal flow at least once per year.
As indicated above by others, one hose valve per 250 gpm is a rule of thumb to determine it.
The minimum test points should be churn, 100% and 150%. But if you can have intermediate points, especially in the range 100-150%, it is much better.

A solution to avoid this : replace the test header with a test line and approved flowmeter. Much easier and more accurate to perform tests (and less water consumption if the test line goes back to the water tank). We normally never use trst header in Europe.

Reply
CONNOR R
10/6/2023 10:33:16 am

It depends on the hoses and equipment that you bring. Each test device e.g. hose monster is calibrated to be used in a certain configuration, and with a certain length of hose. As long as you are using the equipment consistently and in accordance with the manufacturer's listed instructions, you are fine.

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 Dec '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 12259-1
    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

    January 2026
    December 2025
    November 2025
    October 2025
    September 2025
    August 2025
    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

    SEARCH THE FORUM

    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 Old Questions
  • LOGIN
    • TOOLKIT-ONLY LOGIN
    • UNIVERSITY LOGIN
  • STORE
  • OUR CAUSE
    • ABOUT MEYERFIRE
    • JOB OPENINGS
    • BECOME AN INSTRUCTOR
    • HELP/SUPPORT