Inspector's Test Connections
Inspector's Test Connections
(OP)
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.
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.





RE: Inspector's Test Connections
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.
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
I concur.
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
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.
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
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!
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
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.
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
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.
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
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.
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
****************************************
Fire Sprinklers Save Firefighters' Lives Too!
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
"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.
RE: Inspector's Test Connections
Don Phillips
http://worthingtonengineering.com