Thom, It also says when two inches or under the flow doesn't have to be measured and where there is no test device to do as best as possible (through an FDC, out the end of a bulk main or , cross-main, the main drain, ?) and measure the flow. So even though you're not required to do a full flow if the means aren't available you're required to flow as best you can. As to measuring flow in a less than actual full flow I don't see the point.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 1:53 PM, Thom McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gentlemen, please remember that 25 only requires the full forward flow if > the provisions for it have been made in the riser or system. It does not > require that you fail the system, or require the installation of full > forward flow appliances it they don't exist. IF they are there use them and > test the backflow, if not simply test the backflow as per ASSE or as > required by the water AHJ and move on. (It's the same old question with all > installations, Did the AHJ allow this at the time, or was this just an > installation violation. The assumption is always that the AHJ allowed it, to > do otherwise, if the owner says there have been no changes to the system > would make inspections a confrontational situation, which would not improve > the system reliability.) > > Thom McMahon, SET > Firetech, Inc. > 2560 Copper Ridge Dr > P.O. Box 882136 > Steamboat Springs, CO 80488 > Tel: 970-879-7952 > Fax: 970-879-7926 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 1:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Full-flow backflow test > > That's a good logical argument - but it involves too many steps to be > enforced 'round here. Kind of like a political argument that can't fit on a > bumper sticker. So if it's not enforced, the contractors aren't going to add > the costs (a criticism of the system, not the contractors). > > As to section 8.17.4.6.1 ('08 ed): It does not require a test outlet - it > requires a means of full-flow testing, which would be satisfied by someone > saying that they'll just replace the check valve with a 4 in. > elbow and pipe it to the outside on the day of testing...somehow. > > Mark A. Sornsin, PE > Fire Protection Engineer > Ulteig Engineers, Inc. > Fargo, ND > 701.280.8591 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Autry > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 2:12 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Full-flow backflow test > > It's required in 25, which is referenced in 13. So that makes it a > requirement of 13 (NFPA 13, 2002 edition, 2.1) > > David Autry > Plans Examiner > Nebraska State Fire Marshal's Office > 246 S. 14th Street > Lincoln, NE 68508 > 402-471-9659 > 402-471-3118 fax > www.sfm.ne.gov > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 1:58 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: 200 psi test for components rated 175 > > Seeing as the backflow isn't a fire appliance, it makes sense that it's > outside the scope of 13. I'm pretty sure the "full forward flow test" > is a jurisdictional agency thing, i.e. NAVFAC or the serving water > company. So fire officials might require it too - for peace of mind > perhaps? > > BTW, you mitigate the clapper issue by turning the FDC body upside down. > Duh. > > Steve Leyton > Protection Design & Consulting > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Sornsin > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 11:33 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: 200 psi test for components rated 175 > > Don't most FDCs include clappers? How do you backwards flow out an FDC with > clappers? And what do you do when the system has a high demand volume - say > over 500 gpm? You'll have a tough time flowing it out an FDC even without > clappers. > > Seems it's the responsibility of the engineer of record (when they're > present) to require the test outlet so the owner has a means of meeting the > requirements of NFPA 25 - even if the inspectors never end up testing the > backflow. > > When there is not an engineer of record, and a contractor is asked to > design/install a system per code, I don't believe there is any language in > NFPA 13 that would force a contractor to install the test outlet. > > Mark A. Sornsin, PE > Fire Protection Engineer > Ulteig Engineers, Inc. > Fargo, ND > 701.280.8591 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregg Key > Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 12:23 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: 200 psi test for components rated 175 > > Yep, that could be the reason it is shown. > > Yea Matt, sorta trick question, We have installed a few wall hydrants at > Military bases. > Funny thing is that they do there own inspections and they don't > follow NFPA 25 that requires an annual forward flow on the backflows. So the > only systems in our area that do have them , are not being used. > OK while we are at it, how many NFPA 25 inspectors perform the > required forward flow test annually? > > > - > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email > to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
