NFPA 13R underground pressure testing

[mstrfenix]

I know that for a 13R sprinkler system the underground supply has to be pressure tested for 2 hours, however in the 2007 edition of NFPA 13R I can't find where it states that. In section 6.4.2 it talks about testing the aboveground piping, but omits the underground supply and I can't find it any place else in the standard. It might be in the IFC, but I can't find it.
I thought there used to be a catch-all that stated that if it wasn't addessed in 13R you reverted to 13, but alas I can't find that either, figures huh?
I'm sure its right in front of me. Any ideas?

thanks

 

[rconner]

I'm not going to claim specific expertise here, but perhaps now piping you are looking at could be considered that to be "supplying" sprinkler systems (and therefore instead the province of standard NFPA 24)?

 

[mstrfenix]

I suppose that may be the answer in that simply because it is a private fire service main that it is under the requirements of NFPA 24, which requires the hydrostatic test. It would be nice if that were the case for it to spell that out in NFPA 13R like it does in 13 (2007 edition, section 10.10.2.2)

 

[cdafd]

Since it seems like the standard does not think there will be anything but city main pressure on the pipe, there is no need to hydro it.

And also appears you can use any pipe

And possibly tapped of the domestic.


A.5.2.1 This standard anticipates that the water supply for the system is in compliance with the governing plumbing code for the jurisdiction. It is intended that any pipe material or diameter permitted for multiple-family dwellings in the plumbing code and satisfying the hydraulic criteria of NFPA 13R is considered to be in compliance.
Any type of pipe or tube acceptable under the plumbing code for underground supply pipe shall be acceptable as underground supply for the fire sprinkler system when installed between the point of connection and the system riser.


also do not see nfpa 24 referenced

B.1.1 NFPA Publications. National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471.
NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, 2007 edition.
NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes, 2007 edition.
NFPA 20, Standard for the Installation of Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, 2007 edition.
NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems, 2002 edition.

 

[mstrfenix]

A co-worker was able to find something in the IFC (which is our fire code) chapter 5 that states that any private fire service main shall be installed per NFPA 24. With that understanding then yes a 13R underground supply is required to be hydrostatically tested.

 

[cdafd]

not sure if I would agree with that would look to the standard for guidance

 

[ContractorDave]

In my part of the world, 13R usually has the municipal supply to the building and is installed by the mechanical contractor who is responsible for whatever testing is to be done including filling out the sheets as required by the sprinkler system acceptance testing for above ground piping that the piping has been properly flushed. The 13R "sprinkler system" starts at the check valve after the domestic tie in within the building, and is all that is required to be tested to 200 psi. In the 2008 13, chapter 10, Underground Piping, under 10.10 Testing and Acceptance, though there is an area in Fig 10.10.1 Contractors Test Certificate that can be filled out for hydrostatic testing, 10.10.2.2.1 states 'All piping and attached appurtenances subjected to system working pressure shall be tested...' Therefore if your "system" is shared with a domestic line into the building and you have a backflow preventer or some other check valve assembly installed, your system starts there and it doesn't matter who installed the underground. It wouldn't be subject to NFPA's requirements for hydrostatic testing.

On the other hand if you are doing a subdivision for example and are running mains to all the buildings and boosting the pressure with fire pumps, reducing the domestic tie ins with PRV's, then I believe you might be required to test to 200psi or 50psi in excess of system pressure, whichever is greater.

Regards
Dave

 

[PLWSET]

I do not believe that NFPA 13R requires a 13R water supply to be installed per the NFPA 24 standard, and the most current edition of NFPA 24 intends to address this with specificity. The IFC 2003's Section 903.3.1.2 allows the residential fire sprinkler installation to be per 13R and the referenced standard edition is 1999. That standard allows the underground fire main installation to meet the plumbing regulations for the area, Section 2-3 and its subsections. As to the test question, does it have to be hydrostatically tested? Yes, as the definition of a sprinkler system is both aboveground and underground pipe (13R Section 1-3 Definitions, an integrated network of pipe) and 2-1.3.2 requires a hydrostatic test per NFPA 13-1999. NFPA 13 1999 edition encompasses both underground and aboveground and addresses the test methods.

 

[PLWSET]

I noted that you referenced 2007 13R, I apologize, this takes that standard into account. Section 6.4.2 requires a system to be hydrostatically tested, then going back into the definitions, Section 3.3.8 defines a sprinkler system as a network of underground and aboveground pipe, ergo the "system" as defined must be pressure tested when it is 20 or more heads or an FDC. Sorry about that, we only have one AHJ on the 2007 stuff as yet, hope that helps.

 

[ContractorDave]

PLWSET

Respectfully, one must still know where the "system" starts, and this isn't always clear. It may differ from contract to contract, jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and / or authority to authority. I have installed sprinkler systems of every type for over 20 years and have never tested an underground (which merely points to the matter of jurisdiction in my case).

Regards
Dave

 

[Arsnman4]

I would agree with PLWSET regarding the interpretation of (07) 13R 6.4.2 which reverts back to (07) 13 and 10.10.2.2 and the driving referenced standard (07)[24:10.10.2.2.1] I believe the captions in the new editions are the driving mechanism similar to other model codes where a requirement is taken from.

In our region the system starts 5’ outside the exterior wall where connection to municipal supply and their pipe ends.


"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[ContractorDave]

No offence Arsnman4 but by your statement you actually agree with me when you post "In our region the system starts 5' outside the exterior wall where connection to municipal supply and their pipe ends." This is not the case in Canada, and likely not the case with where PLWSET hails from.

Quite simply, underground piping may or may not be part of a given sprinkler system. 13 /10.10.2.2.1 will automatically eliminate the need for testing underground if there is a check valve of any sort that isolates the underground from the above ground system working pressure. I would hazard a reasonably experienced guess that this would apply to almost all municipal systems where there is a backflow preventer, fire pump, or alarm valve.

Regards
Dave

 

[Arsnman4]

No offence taken, my agreement was referring to the underground hydrostatic testing interpretational dialogue. I would also agree that the testing must also factor in the piping material and manufacturer standards and listings (e.g. AWWA) while considering the use of CPVC and other approved tubing materials for 13R as outlined in the code text and as guided in the annexes. I would also agree that where systems start differ from one jurisdiction to another.

"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[rconner]

This has been an interesting thread/education in the niceties and cooperation of these codes. Lest some any statements made in this thread be misinterpreted, I hope all agree that it is generally advisable (and some protective of all parties and the public) that newly installed underground piping undergo a field hydrostatic test basically installed and in the conditions/loadings it will provide service to the Owner (and or public, and also at maybe some degree above normal “working pressure”). I realize of course that there might be individual tie-in points, joints, or boundaries of contracts etc. that for various reasons may not get very high pressure field testing, but I think it should be realized that some types of pipes nowadays (produced per minimal standards) do not even get routine hydrostatic tests at factories or otherwise unless specifically required/enforced to undergo same, and also despite the best pipes and intentions (and even beyond manufacture and shipment to the field) “stuff” (sometimes) “happens”.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Why a hydrostatic test in the first place?

It isn't to insure a leak proof system at 200 psi or we would be required to perform hydrostatic tests on systems less than 20 sprinklers where a fire depeartment connection is not required.

The reason for the hydro is to insure the sytem will stay together once the fire department pumper hooks to it.

I've seen some fire departments get wild on underground hydro's even with the check valve is located inside the building and FDC is on the wall. Regardless of what the city does the underground into the building will never see more than city water pressure.

Most cities only require a 100 psi test and even for a dedicated fire line this should be adequate except the book stays otherwise.

An overhead test, why do we do this? I do not believe the main purpose is to find leaks so much as to insure the system will not fail when the fire department hooks up to it. Leaks happen, we've all had leaks develop after the hydro but these are all taken care of... the owner will not allow otherwise.

IMHO we need not get wound up on the underground hydro unless the main could see fire department pumper connections.

But what we have to watch out for, regardless of who installs the line, is FLUSHING! This is even more important when a plumber installs a line and it is our policy we flush every underground, doesn't matter if another company does it I want to see it done for myself, prior to hooking our system up so THEIR ROCKS don't become OUR PROBLEM.

 

[Arsnman4]

SD2, totally agree with the thought process. Rairly would we (fire service) ever need to pump over the rated 175 psi of most common puiping and appliance listings. Rock are indeed a big problem and as you mention, personally, I care about flushing far more than the underground hydro. In addition, we do not test 13D or R to 200 psi in our locale but do assure there is a hydro done on the above ground even with 13D.

Can one of you deisgners or field persons head over to the other thread and give me some guidance regarding the "forward flow" testing on existing systems where there are no means for testing it in an existing arrangement....thanks!

"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[786392]

Dear Arsnman4 Hello/Good Evening;May I humbally add to your signature quote as follows
"Fire Suppression is a failure in prevention; thus It must have superior-most reliablity indeed"
Hope you are not offended!

Best Regards
Qalander(Chem)

 

[Arsnman4]

No offense at all (786392)! It's a phrase I've used for 24 years to allow people to think what it's really all about and how to get suppression professionals to look outside the box when it comes to why we signed up. Thanks!

"Fire suppression is a failure in prevention"

 

[PLWSET]

I agree that it is interesting to see the different opinions on this issue, or any issue that relates to fire sprinkler systems and their installation. For me, no offense is taken when comments/concerns are provided appropriately. Having someone question a technique or method is how I learned where to look things up to justify a position. I am not aware of a standard/code that relates the hydrostatic testing to the pressure created by use of an FDC. A quick review of NFPA 13-99 Section 10-2.2 reads to me that any part of a fire sprinkler system (again see definitions) that is subject to system working pressure shall be tested to 200-psi.

It is my experience that AHJs do not allow exceptions for testing for anything greater than 20-heads and minor modifications. In fact we have had to pressure test existing systems that are 20 years old when the code official said “because I said so” and we weren’t willing to risk their wrath and argue the point.

Many of the comments here were correct that my thoughts were based upon my experiences in the states where I have worked. In addition to the NFPA standards, there are underground testing requirements that are addressed in association pamphlets & standards, fire & building code amendments; the installation procedures published by the manufacturer may have a statement in it that recommends flushing and testing of underground mains per the AWWA standard. Provided it is a combination water main then the installation contractor may have to flush and test per the AWWA, UPC, or IPC requirements to meet the plumbing authority's codes. Three fire districts (we have over 90 districts/departments just on one side of the river of where I am based) have adopted codes that require a contractor installing a combination water main that supplies fire hydrants (public or private) and/or fire sprinklers to test that main per NFPA 24. The minimum test pressure to be placed on the potable main is 200 psi.
BTW-In most cases. I tend to feel that the definition of a fire sprinkler system would seem to be at the point that potable water drops out, regardless of who installs it.

 

[786392]

Here I feel like disagreeing to the experienced professional stopping to test beyond the certain expertise generated number or %age figure.
I would rather go for experiencing the system subjected to real or almost real situation system pressure instead of a failure occurring in Actual Fire situations.


Best Regards
Qalander(Chem)