Inspector's Test Connections 1

[FFP1]

I apologize in advance for this rant.

If anyone has any pull or influence with the development of NFPA 13........

Please discuss the idiotic approach of installing Inspector's Test Connections at the sprinkler riser (12 in. downstream of the flow switch). This has been considered "acceptable" since 2002 and is quickly becoming standard practice. There are several serious reasons why this is a bad idea and from an engineering standpoint this is a very poor design. The inevitable trapped air in the system causes or can potentially cause a number of problems: Excessive system pressure when temperatures increase, false water flow alarms due to air pocket expansion/contraction, failed water flow alarms due to cycling flow switches, increased rust on the interior surfaces of sprinkler piping, etc.

From what I have seen, most contractors or sprinkler designers who primarily install or design new systems have no idea this approach causes problems for the building owner and/or fire protection system inspectors. I can confirm these are common problems at several of the facilities I have visited over the past few years. In many instances, the only effective solution is to install a suitable Inspector's Test Connection or bleed the air pockets using sprinklers at the highest elevations. The problem is access at some facilities after the solid ceilings or other obstructions have been introduced.

In my humble opinion, Inspector's Test Connections should be installed at the most remote point of each system. The connection point (prior to being piped to within 6 ft. of the floor level) should be at the highest elevation of the sprinkler system piping whenever possible. Auxilliary drains or low point drains should NOT be considered Inspector's Test Connections.

Just one man's perspective!! I wonder if anyone on this forum agrees with me on this subject.

 

[cdafd]

the only reason for the inspector test is to test the flow switch

so that is why on a wet system it can be placed any where.

Your other concerns some seem valid and some seem a rant but it is friday which means rant day.

 

[trashcanman]

"In my humble opinion, Inspector's Test Connections should be installed at the most remote point of each system. The connection point (prior to being piped to within 6 ft. of the floor level) should be at the highest elevation of the sprinkler system piping whenever possible. Auxilliary drains or low point drains should NOT be considered Inspector's Test Connections."

I concur.

 

[firepe]

I agree with cdafd.

The ITC is there on a WET system to test the alarm device, that's it. Those of us trained in insurance have been brought up/trained that this was absolutely necessary at the most remote end of the system. NFPA 13 says otherwise.

As I have said before, you need to leave your old insurance inspector hat at the door to be a contractor.

As for your other points, there is some merit there, but don't just assign this function to the ITC. The NFPA 13 committee considers the ITC to be an alarm test valve only. If you want it addressed, call it something else, and send in a proposal to the standards committee.

 

[FFP1]

Your "old insurance inspector hat" comments are pretty funny.

I was an insurance inspector for 15 years. I started my own fire protection contractor company and our primary focus is inspection, repairs and engineering consulting for water based fire protection systems.

I suppose it really comes down to this: I have enough experience and personal dealings with actual issues (after the design phase and initial installation project has been completed) to realize that the Inspector's Test Connection serves more purposes than just testing the water flow alarms. I simply disagree with the relatively recent change in NFPA 13 which allows this approach and I strongly believe the practice of installing the Inspector's Test Connection a few feet downstream of the water flow switch should be considered unacceptable.

In many instances, the fire alarm companies and building owners have to deal with the issues caused by this poor design. They rarely if ever realize the true source or reason for the intermittent false alarms. They simple bypass the alarm or set the delays so high that the flow switch cycling becomes a problem during alarm testing.

We have repaired two systems this year which developed leaks due to excess pressure caused by trapped air pockets (two different locations). We see systems with >175 psi on a regular basis caused by this problem.......some systems even peg the 300 psi gauges. On of my other customers had 5 sprinklers leak and/or pop open due to excess system pressure last year alone. We added pressure relief valves in August of 2007 for all of their wet systems and are in the process of adding a proper ITC for each system as time permits. This is a >1 million sq. ft. facility with several wet systems. False fire alarms and excess air pressure are very common problems when this approach is used. I could provide many more examples, but I think I have made my point.

The fact that someone or some group convinced the NFPA commitee to change the standard and the fact that the approach saves time and money does not make it a good engineering design!

 

[cdafd]

So when did the change come into affect??

I thought for a very long time that on wet systems 13 did not state where it had to be located, only on dry systems.

 

[Cidona]

It definitly would be more difficult to implimate the end of system for the ITC in a high rise condo type bulidings. Not saying it shouldn't be done. Just if you have a main in the coridor with branchlines feeding into the units, coming off the end of a branchline would be more difficult.

 

[cdafd]

Ok
for remote placement crowd what do you do with multi story building with a floor control valve on each floor and the flow switch and inspector test is at the tap???

Would you still require another inspector test at the remote and than you have a drain issue.

 

[colfire]

One thing that nobody has brought up yet is the problem some places in the country are having with MIC. If the ITC is located at or near the riser there will be a minimal amount of oxygen reintroduced to the sprinkler piping. With the ITC located at the most remote area or branch line, every time a test is conducted new water containing oxygen will be introduced to the system and help fuel corrosion, ultimately decreasing the life of the sprinkler piping and increasing friction loss.

 

[FFP1]

The ITC for high rise buildings can be arranged to discharge onto the roof, outside the exterior walls in a few instances, in mechanical rooms through floor drains, into mop sinks in janitor closets, down the far stairwell (common drain for ITC's same as the main drain at the riser), fed back from the far end to discharge into the main drain at the stairwell riser, into roof drain piping, etc. Sometimes you might have to be creative. I have even seen the ITC's tapped into the domestic drain piping. We are not creating the wheel here.......all of these have been completed in the past when the ITC's were still provided at or close to the most remote area. The industry has simply started doing it the easy/cheap way; primarily to increase profit margin in my personal opinion.

There are probably a few instances where placing the ITC a few feet downstream of the flow switch should be considered acceptable due to limited or no feasible alternatives; however, these instances should be the last resort alternative rather than standard practice.

 

[LCREP]

Why not submit a change to the NFPA 13 committee they are working on the next edition of 13 now.

****************************************
Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters’ Lives Too!

 

[firepe]

FFP1 said:

"the industry has simply started doing it the easy/cheap way; primarily to increase profit margin in my personal opinion."

I don't know where you are contracting your business at, but are we to assume you have no competition? Apparently most of the rest of us contractor types, not you apparently, are raping our customers?

How about I have to beat my competition, who by the way, is also bidding it the same way. You want it done that way, put it in the specs. If the specs say NFPA 13 and local jurisdiction building code compliant, then this is ALL you will get.

You're entitled to your opinion, mine is that I am glad that the NFPA process is a concensus process and not dictatorship, lest personal opinions enter the equation.

 

[DonPhillips]

NFPA 13 a minimum standard and a referenced standard within most building codes - meaning you have to design beginning at this minimum. If good practice to is to place the test valve at the most hydraulicaaly remote portion of the system to test the system, then a building owner or its insurance company needs to require this as the minimum standard, as a business decision. I would not want the government to require more than is reasonably required to save lives and property.


Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com