Better but it is still interpretable as requiring a measured flow be established (if using the main drain location then the BOR design data). Then you'd need a port that flowed that much, main drain or otherwise, and then measure your annual test against anticipated flow to make sure you are meeting or exceeding the required flow. Or am I missing something? I'm pretty certain that newer fire service rated backflows don't fail any more often than normal FS checks, and that that type of failure is either catastrophic (doesn't open or barely opens) wouldn't a simple main drain test with decent flow demonstrate that the valve is working? just a Forum question as this is a done deal and I wasn't invited to join the exclusive 25 club.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Roland Huggins <[email protected]>wrote: > the next edition has been cleaned-up on this issue. > > _______________________________________________________________ 25-271 Log > #CP15 Final Action: Accept > (13.6.2.1, 13.6.2.2 (New)) > _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: > Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based > Systems, > > Recommendation: Revise 13.6.2.1 to read as follows: > 13.6.2.1 All backflow preventers installed in fire protection system > piping shall be exercised annually by conducting a forward flow test at a > minimum flow rate of the system design. > Add new 13.6.2.2 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly: > 13.6.2.2 Where hydrants or inside hose stations are located downstream of > the backflow preventer, the forward flow test shall include hose stream > demand. Substantiation: This change was needed to better reflect that the > backflow preventer is not a precise test whereby the flow through it must > be measured but effort to exercise the device at flows as near as possible > to the system demand. > Committee Meeting Action: Accept > Number Eligible to Vote: 33 > Ballot Results: Affirmative: 32 Negative: 1 > Explanation of Negative: > > RAY, R.: This proposal should have been accepted in principle: the wording > “at a minimum flow rate” is confusing and should be reworded. > _______________________________________________________________ 25-272 Log > #121 Final Action: Accept > > (13.6.2.1.1) > > _______________________________________________________________ Submitter: > Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. > Recommendation: Delete the following text: > > 13.6.2.1.1 For backflow preventers sized 2 in. (50 mm) and under, the > forward flow test shall be acceptable to conduct without measuring flow, > where the test outlet is of a size to flow the system demand. > Substantiation: This section implies that a measured flow is required for > Backflow preventers (BFP) larger than 2 in when nothing in 13.6.2.1 states > such a requirement. There are other means to identify that the system > demand is flowing through the BFP as discussed in A.13.6.2.1 It also needs > to be kept in mind that we are simply exercising the BFP to ensure it will > fully open at approximately the system demand. A high degree of accuracy > regarding the volume of water is not warranted. Additionally, BFP’s are > subjected to an annual internal inspection as part of the cross connection > protection program. Committee Meeting Action: Accept > Number Eligible to Vote: 33 > Ballot Results: Affirmative: 33 > > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives > Dallas, TX > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Dwight Havens <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Then they ought to say that in the code language. > > > > Dwight > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: John Denhardt <[email protected]> > > To: "[email protected]" < > [email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:07 PM > > Subject: RE: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test > > > > > > While I do disagree to some extent of what the NFPA 25 committee has > done, Roland statement is correct. I have had numerous discussions with > NFPA 25 committee members where they have stated the intent was to exercise > the device at near system demand. The key word to me was "Exercise". > > > > John > > > > John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE > > Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated > > 5113 Berwyn Road > > College Park, Maryland 20740 > > Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 > > Mobile Telephone Number: 301-343-1457 > > FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without them? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Forest Wilson > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:42 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test > > > > Here is an email on this topic that Roland addressed in the past: > > > > Im not going to say it was one of those casual assumptions that all > > systems are calculated nor that all risers have placards. The main > > thing to keep in mind that the intent is simply to fully EXERCISE the > > BFP at what os expected to be the system demand. If no data > > available, a discussion with the AHJ is warranted. As for benchmarks, > > only the flow is pertinent and pressure is irrelevant. > > > > Roland > > > > On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Matthew J. Willis wrote: > > > >>> > >>> On a more important matter: If a system was retrofitted with a > >>> backflow, > >> and > >>> there is no hydraulic calc plaque attached to the riser, and NFPA > >>> requires > >>> forward flow testing of backflows, how can you conduct the test > >>> without a > >>> benchmark to test against? > >>> > >>> What is the recommended practice in this scenario? > >>> Forest Wilson > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Then subjective good flow demonstrates a working valve? If so all the > >> numbers bantered around are pretty meaningless. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Forest Wilson <[email protected] > >wrote: > >> > >>> No. > >>> The intent is not to pitot the output but to exercise the valve. > >>> > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>> On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Forest. What were you flowing to discover these failures? Main drain > or > >>>> some special test header? Would a sign with the data requested by the > >>>> customer that started this thread have had any utility in helping you > >>>> discover the problem? > >>>> > >>>> Then back to that perennial question of what's a "full flow " test and > >>> how > >>>> do you do one? I think Roland said the intent was to flow an > equivalent > >>> to > >>>> the design discharge criteria. How do you do this? Do we run a pitot > >>>> somewhere on the system? Do we catch and measure discharge? If so, > from > >>>> where? How do we arrange the test port(s)? Do we flow the design area > or > >>>> simulate it elsewhere? Do we need results of at least or better flow > or > >>>> right on the money flow? If not either of those how do we judge? > >>>> > >>>> Doesn't the hydraulic data plate note the required psi per the calcs > at > >>> the > >>>> BOR and the static? Isn't the difference the residual drop at that > point > >>>> relative to the design area? Wouldn't a main drain with good flow at a > >>> psi > >>>> around the BOR rating, and returning to close to the noted static when > >>>> terminated suggest a fully open valve, or an adequately open valve if > the > >>>> UG is oversized? In the latter case the partially open valve is > >>> equivalent > >>>> to fully open for the system I just described. Am I missing something > >>> here? > >>>> An erroneous a priori? My understanding of hydraulics wrong? Main > drains > >>>> are too small to simulate the result of all design area heads flowing > as > >>>> the water passes through the BOR? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Forest Wilson <[email protected] > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I still have the check valve from a Ames that failed to open. > >>>>> It was jammed shut, discovered when I was called out because they > >>> couldn't > >>>>> do the fire pump test. > >>>>> > >>>>> In another case, I tested a backflow and it failed (on a Best Buy > >>> store). > >>>>> I opened the valve up and the check was damaged, would only open a > >>> third. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>>> > >>>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Worked well for plumbing and process piping applications as they are > >>>>>> constantly being exercised. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Dwight Havens < > [email protected] > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I do remember the ones with the rods in the center of the valve > being > >>>>>>> particularly poor. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Dwight > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>>> From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:25 PM > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow > Test > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> By the mid-nineties you have the early Ames models purpose built > for > >>>>>>> sprinklers readily available, but many units being installed are > still > >>>>> not > >>>>>>> listed for fire service as many jurisdictions don't consider the > fire > >>>>> line > >>>>>>> a fire line until after the backflow, and a n on-listed device is > >>>>> cheaper > >>>>>>> than a listed one. Plus many go back to the seventies and many used > >>>>> weights > >>>>>>> instead of springs and complicated lever systems for joining the > >>>>> clappers > >>>>>>> and weights. Wish I could post a picture. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Dwight Havens < > [email protected] > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Give me a time frame. My best recollection is the mid '90's. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Dwight > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>>>> From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>> To: [email protected] > >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:12 PM > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow > Test > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Were these the plumbing type before fire service listed devices > >>>>> existed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Dwight Havens < > >>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, yes, and yes. The original proposal was based on observed > >>>>>>> failures > >>>>>>>>> of BFPAs to operate properly during main drain testing. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Glendale, AZ public library specifically comes to mind. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dwight > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> From: Todd Williams <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>> To: "[email protected]" < > >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:32 PM > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow > Test > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Has there ever been an instance of system failure due to the > >>> backflow > >>>>>>> not > >>>>>>>>> properly opening? How about detection of a BFP problem during a > full > >>>>>>> flow > >>>>>>>>> test. How about something subsequent to the initial acceptance? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Todd G Williams, PE > >>>>>>>>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting > >>>>>>>>> Stonington, CT > >>>>>>>>> 860-535-2080 > >>>>>>>>> www.fpdc.com > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>> Ron Greenman > >>>>>>>> Instructor > >>>>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology > >>>>>>>> Bates Technical College > >>>>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > >>>>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 253.680.7346 > >>>>>>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Member: > >>>>>>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. > -Francis > >>>>>>> Bacon, > >>>>>>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Ron Greenman > >>>>>>> Instructor > >>>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology > >>>>>>> Bates Technical College > >>>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > >>>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 253.680.7346 > >>>>>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Member: > >>>>>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. > -Francis > >>>>> Bacon, > >>>>>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Ron Greenman > >>>>>> Instructor > >>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology > >>>>>> Bates Technical College > >>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > >>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 253.680.7346 > >>>>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Member: > >>>>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > >>>>>> > >>>>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > >>>>> Bacon, > >>>>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>>>> [email protected] > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>>> [email protected] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Ron Greenman > >>>> Instructor > >>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology > >>>> Bates Technical College > >>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > >>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > >>>> > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> > >>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > >>>> > >>>> 253.680.7346 > >>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) > >>>> > >>>> Member: > >>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > >>>> > >>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > >>> Bacon, > >>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> > >>> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> > >>> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Ron Greenman > >> Instructor > >> Fire Protection Engineering Technology > >> Bates Technical College > >> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > >> Tacoma, WA 98405 > >> > >> [email protected] > >> > >> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > >> > >> 253.680.7346 > >> 253.576.9700 (cell) > >> > >> Member: > >> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > >> > >> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > Bacon, > >> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
