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

Is 2-Inch Enough for Forward-Flow Testing?

5/26/2022

15 Comments

 
There has been a lot of discussion on this post regarding forward flow test connections.

NFPA doesn't address sizing of this connection. The project I'm currently working on is strictly sprinkler with Light and Ordinary Group 1 hazards, with no standpipe connections. The maximum expected flow is 250-300 gallons per minute.

The engineer is showing a 2" forward flow test connection piped to an open fitting on an outside wall. I know that fire pump tests are frequently conducted using 1 3/4" nozzles and easily achieve 250 gpm readings.

Does it make sense that a 2" connection would be adequate in this instance?

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​Sent in anonymously for discussion. Click Title to View | Submit Your Question | Subscribe
15 Comments
Eric R
5/26/2022 07:21:02 am

It is good to note that the most recent edition of NFPA 13 does have a prescriptive requirement of one 2.5" hose valve per 250gpm of system demand. However it also states that alternative means may be provided as long as the assembly can provide the required flow and doesn't require any modifications to the system arrangement to run the test.

Now whether a 2" assembly will be sufficient is directly related to the available pressure of the water supply. Flowing 300gpm through a 2" drain assembly should be pretty easy to achieve if the residual pressure at that rate is 50psi or higher and the drain piping assembly is relatively short.

If alternatively there is only 30psi available at your system demand and your drain needs to run a decent distance to the discharge location then you might be cutting it close.

As a personal recommendation, I always like to provide a NST hose adapter and cap on the exterior wall like this:
https://argco.com/fire-equipment/6510204a.html
Which will allow the inspection company to attach a hose monster nozzle directly to the outlet without needing to setup any fire hose or diffusers (assuming the location is suitable for this arrangement).

Reply
Eric R
5/26/2022 07:34:20 am

Oh, and since this is the topic of the day. It drives me nuts that the NFPA 13 annex material for these test assemblies still mentions piping the discharge around the FDC check valve with a bypass as an optional arrangement. There really is no justification for this to still be acceptable.

If the distance from the riser to the exterior is short, which would likely mean there is a low chance of trapping water in the FDC piping, then the cost of a dedicated line would be minimal.

If the distance from the riser to the exterior is long, then running water into the FDC piping could create all sorts of problem with trapped water, corrosion, and discharge from the ball drip assembly.

If the amount of discharge is high (400gpm+) then the clapper assembly in a standard siamese FDC is going to block discharge from one of the outlets and not allow adequate water flow.

Reply
matthew mueller
5/26/2022 08:19:05 am

I've only seen a check valve bypass when the FDC is a Storz connection, so no worry of a siamese clapper. Otherwise, I suppose you could removed the siamese to achieve the same thing.

schulman
5/26/2022 08:21:02 am

my state construction office (SCO) requires (2) 2-1/2" hose connections for forward flow testing @ 500 gpm (3 for 750, and 4 for 1000)...etc ...

I stick to my SCO standards as a designer because it covers many if not all scenarios... sometimes more is more ...

Reply
Alex
5/26/2022 08:23:41 am

Hi,

To start, Eric, thank you for the in-depth response!

To echo Eric's point, NFPA 13 (2022) 16.14.5.1.1 states that "a 2 1/2 inch hose valve shall be provided downstream of the backflow prevention valve for every 250 gpm of flow rate required by the system demand including hose allowance where applicable"

Now, could you achieve 300 GPM through a 2" pipe... sure. As long as you have the pressure, you definitely can. I would write back and request a 2 1/2" pipe.

Thanks,
Alex

Reply
Mark Harris
5/26/2022 08:34:45 am

If any of you are on NFPA 13 committee maybe it makes sense to talk about changing main drain form 2" to 2-1/2" to be both drain and flow connection on a light or ordinary hazard occupancy. Flows greater than 250 would need additional connections as noted above.

Reply
Dan Wilder
5/26/2022 09:46:32 am

Anyone can submit a "Public Input" (PI) but plan on a 3-5 year process for it to make it in (I'm not on a 13 committee but on 3 other NFPA's and the E&S for NFSA and we are in discussion for the 2025 editions and beyond). You can also tap into your local/regional AFSA/NFSA reps to have them submit something, but be prepared to provide justification and any testing support you can provide.

https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/Codes-and-standards/Regulations-directory-and-forms/Stds_Dev_Process_Booklet_2018.ashx

Reply
Peter
5/26/2022 10:09:53 am

The table for drain size in NFPA 13 states that you can use the size for the drain prescribed based upon riser size "or larger".

Reply
Jesse
5/26/2022 08:56:43 am

I'm late to the party again. Eric had an excellent response, and I would echo what Alex said. We typically use a 2.5" valve for every 250-gpm. Yeah, you could get 300-gpm using a 2". I would try to have them authorize the 2.5"

Reply
David Kendrick
5/26/2022 10:38:00 am

Has anyone found the original rational for this modification of the standards? That is to require a full forward flow.

I recognize the logic behind the directives but was there any documentable harms or failures that drove this issue?

For quite a while we used the main drain test documentation to validate the systems current performance against the original installation.

A deviation from the original numbers should cause investigation into why.

I cannot recall ever finding a riser check or alarm check "stuck" shut.

Have there been backflow preventer checks (not the relief valve) that "stuck" closed?

Reply
Eric R
5/26/2022 11:31:11 am

From a brief archive search on NFPA.org it looks like the requirement to forward flow testing backflows was brought into NFPA 25 in 1998 (I can confirm it is in my 2002 paper edition sitting on my shelf). Below is the link to the Request for Proposals for that edition with the new language starting on page 13.
https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/25/ROPF-1997-25.pdf

It is interesting that the substation for the proposal speaks directly towards verifying the static and residual pressures of the flow test at system demand and comparing those results against the hydraulic placard, as opposed to simply exercising the backflow checks to keep them in good working order which is the common reasoning I hear for the requirement in training sessions today.

An interesting nuance can be found between NFPA 25-2020 and NFPA13-2022 where in NFPA13 it states the test assembly is being installed to allow for required testing per 25, but an annex note states that this "flow test" is only interested in measuring gpm flow and not residual pressure. However in NFPA25 the code language calls for performing a "flow test" but is silent on if residual pressure should be recorded during this test. Even checking the proposed changes for the upcoming 2023 edition, I do not see any modifications that speak to whether or not pressure readings should be recorded during this test. There is also not a specific definition of the term "flow test" in chapter 3.

The reasoning I often hear as to why this flow test should not record residual pressure is that sprinkler inspector technicians are not qualified to assess the "adequacy of a water supply to meet a system demand." The defining scope of NFPA 25 is to check for general conditions of system equipment functionality and not to be performing engineering or design tasks so this reasoning is probably valid.

BUT! Just because checking water supply data against the hydraulic demand isn't part of a periodic inspection does not mean it still isn't a good idea to arrange the permanently installed equipment on a brand new system to allow for such an analysis in the future. System modifications, tenant fit-outs, or pipe degradation may someday require a full engineering review of the system to be performed Having a ready made flow test point at the riser will certainly make that job easier!

Reply
Dan Wilder
5/26/2022 05:53:55 pm

Nice Eric!

In the conversation had concerning NFPA 13 System Acceptance and NFPA 25 ITM that I have been apart of, the intent (in my opinion) is to install and validate a NFPA 13 compliant system (from original water supply testing through to building turnover).

Afterwards, the owner, through a timely and consistent process of ITM and accompanying ITM activities and paperwork, should be able to identify water supply degradation that "may" indicate issues that need to be verified via an engineering analysis. They aren't saying there is a problem, they are saying it's different and you (Mr. Owner) need to investigate why.

25's Section 1.1 is pretty specific to state (edited for key words) ",,,and the actions to undertake when changes in occupancy,...or water supply that potentially impact the performance of the water-based system are planned or identified." That gets followed up with 4.1.7 and is the owner's responsibility.

Randy Kimbro
5/27/2022 08:06:25 am

As an AHJ, we use the annual forward flow with the pitot measurement to compare the available GPM to the engineered requirement on the hydraulic plate. We want to ensure there is adequate water supply. The static and residual pressures are measured separately using the main inspector test drain. For older systems, we require the installation of one 2.5" hose valve for each 250 GPM.

Although there is language in NFPA 13 and 25 regarding flow "at the base of the riser" we require the 2.5" hose valve to be installed above the riser backflow and above the alarm water flow switch to ensure we are measuring the true GPM that will reach the sprinklers.

Reply
Eric R
5/27/2022 09:23:53 am

This brings up another great topic of discussion.

"Base of the Riser" does not seem to have a specific NFPA definition. The closest I found was system riser in NFPA 13.

"3.3.225 System Riser.
The aboveground horizontal or vertical pipe between the water supply and the mains (cross or feed) that contains a control valve (either directly or within its supply pipe), a pressure gauge, a drain, and a waterflow alarm device."

A very common problem we have when preparing drawings for existing system modifications is hydraulic placards that have the wrong values document in the "system design" section for required water flow and residual pressure. NFPA 13 calls for those values be recorded for the "base of riser" per:

"29.4.3
The sign shall include the following information:
(4) Required flow and residual pressure demand at the base of the riser or fire pump where applicable"

but upon review of actual system drawings and calculation sheets we will find that the values documented are actually for the "source" node of the design. I have learned that if the hydraulic placard's water flow demand value seems to include the outside hose extra amount, then it's likely that the residual pressure number is based on the requirement way out in the street and not at the "base of the riser".

My opinion is that the base of riser point is below(before) the "system riser" equipment (control valve, check valve, flow switch, and main drain), but after the backflow preventer assembly. This works especially well if you have a manifold riser assembly with multiple system risers supplied from a single water supply. It would also insure that the residual pressure value on the placard doesn't include the loss for the BFP which if included could create unnecessary concern when a main drain test results in a residual pressure lower than the value on the placard.

With this in mind, installing the BFP flow test point directly after the backflow is best as it will be able to perform it's stated NFPA 25 purpose, but also allow for validation testing of the system's hydraulic placard as part of a design review.

Now I just need to figure out a way to make sure new systems not installed by my team get the proper data put on them! Just last month we went to do a tenant fit-out at a brand new mixed use building that had be CO'd only two months prior. Six shiny hydraulic placards had just been hung, and every last one was completely wrong!

Reply
Randy Kimbro
5/31/2022 10:42:33 am

ERIC R - I agree with the misinformation on some hydraulic placards. I have seen wrong street addresses, missing data, and inaccurate flow rates. As an AHJ we also really dislike the newer trend of using stickers instead of permanent metal plates for the hydraulic information. The stickers sometimes fall off the riser, are really not considered permanent, and can actually get painted over when they are placed on an adjacent wall instead of on the riser as required.




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