×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

AWWA C651 Pressure Testin Against New Valve/Flushing Velocities

AWWA C651 Pressure Testin Against New Valve/Flushing Velocities

AWWA C651 Pressure Testin Against New Valve/Flushing Velocities

(OP)
Hi all,

When installing new mains and larger (4" and greater) services, AWWA C651 is used. In my neck of the woods, it is a forgone conclusion to apply the "optional" clause C651-14 4.8.9 Backflow Protection, by installing the main up to within 6 m of the tie-in, flush using a 2" port at either end (depending on main size) of the new main; do a prelim flush, chlorinate, flush, test and then once the new main passes bacteriological testing, to open the new and existing pipes at the tie-in, swab the tie-in section and connect, then flush from the existing distribution system into the new system and call it a day.

We believe that in many cases it is better to hot tap the existing main, construct the new main beginning at this closed tapping valve, then flush from the existing main (ensuring backflow protection by the planned order of valve/blow off operation) through the new valve, pressure test against the new closed (new, resilient seat only) valve, chlorinate, flush, then to add the new main to the system, just open the connecting tapping valve, rather than opening the pipe up, swabbing and tying in. The benefits to this method are that a high-velocity preliminary flush is almost always achieved, and that the tie-in section of pipe is only opened once, during initial installation, reducing contamination potential.

There is firm resistance to this method because I do not believe it is understood, and I believe the historical basis for backflow protection instead of using a valve connected to the existing system was because of older style metal-seated valves which do not close tight like resilient seated valves do. I am aware of one City (over 1 million pop) that does do it using a connected valve, but I want to gauge the community here for feedback, since many jurisdictions only reference that C651 shall be followed, I can find nowhere that comes out and details the preferred specific methods regarding not applying the optional clause 4.8.9 except that C651 says that if the owner does not specifically include optional clauses, then they are excluded. This of course could mean that the owner just didn't bother to pay attention, or for other reasons, left it up to the operations dept or past practice or something.

So, what are some of your experiences and jurisdictions that have mandated either of these? As a side note, do you think those who enact clause 4.8.9 understand the implications, or just think that "optional"="better"?

Thanks greatly, sorry for the long-winded post! ;)

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources