RF Fire Department Connection in Let Flow Assessment

Fire Department
Connection (FDC) Inlet

Flow Assessment
FINAL REPORT BY:
Y. Pock Utiskul, Ph.D., Neil P. Wu, P.E., and Elizabeth

Keller
Exponent, Inc.
Bowie, Maryland, USA
January 2016
© 2016 Fire Protection Research Foundation
1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7417, USA

Email: foundation@nfpa.org | Web: nfpa.org/foundation
FOREWORD
A Fire Department Connection (FDC) is “A connection through which the fire department can
pump supplemental water into the sprinkler system, standpipe, or other system, furnishing water
for fire extinguishment to supplement existing water supplies.” FDCs are required on all
standpipe systems per NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems,
and sprinkler systems per NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems.
In 2007, the Technical Committee for NFPA 14 added the requirement for one 2 ½ inch inlet per
every 250 gallons per minute (gpm), but this requirement lacks supporting scientific
documentation, so there was a need to conduct flow testing to determine the amount of water
that is possible to flow into an FDC inlet.
The Fire Protection Research Foundation initiated this project to determine the actual flow that
can be achieved for each 2 ½ inch inlet on an FDC to provide technical basis to the NFPA 14
Technical Committee for a possible change to the standard.
The Fire Protection Research Foundation expresses gratitude to the report authors Y. Pock
Utiskul, Ph.D., Neil P. Wu, P.E., and Elizabeth Keller who are with Exponent, Inc. The
Foundation also expresses gratitude to the Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute (MFRI) where
the tests were conducted. The Research Foundation appreciates the guidance provided by the
Project Technical Panelists and all others that contributed to this research effort. Thanks are
also expressed to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) for providing the project
funding through the NFPA Research Fund.
The content, opinions and conclusions contained in this report are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the views of the Fire Protection Research Foundation, NFPA,
Technical Panel or Sponsors. The Foundation makes no guaranty or warranty as to the
accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.

About the Fire Protection Research Foundation
The Fire Protection Research Foundation plans, manages, and communicates research on a
broad range of fire safety issues in collaboration with scientists and laboratories around the
world. The Foundation is an affiliate of NFPA.
About the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Founded in 1896, NFPA is a global, nonprofit organization devoted to eliminating death, injury,
property and economic loss due to fire, electrical and related hazards. The association delivers
information and knowledge through more than 300 consensus codes and standards, research,
training, education, outreach and advocacy; and by partnering with others who share an interest
in furthering the NFPA mission.
All NFPA codes and standards can be viewed online for free.
NFPA's membership totals more than 65,000 individuals around the world.
Keywords: fire department connection, FDC, FDC inlet, flow testing, standpipe systems,
NFPA 14
Report number: FPRF-2016-02

PROJECT TECHNICAL PANEL
Scott Futrell, Futrell Fire Consult & Design, Inc.
Dave Hague, Liberty Mutual
Jeff Hebenstreit, UL LLC
Steve Leyton, Protection Design & Consulting (AFSA representative)
Bob Morgan, Fort Worth Fire Department
Maurice Pilette, Mechanical Designs Ltd
Pete Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers
Kyle Smith, Cobb County Fire and Emergency Services
Ronald Webb, S.A. Comunale Company, Inc. (NFSA representative)
Chad Duffy, NFPA Staff Liaison
PROJECT SPONSOR
National Fire Protection Association

Thermal Sciences
Fire Department Connection

Inlet Flow Requirements:
A Report on Full-scale
Testing Results
Fire Department Connection
Inlet Flow Requirements:
A Report on Full-scale
Testing Results
Prepared for
Fire Protection Research Foundation

One Batterymarch Park
Quincy, MA 02169
Prepared by
Y. Pock Utiskul, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI

Neil P. Wu, P.E., IAAI-CFI, CBO
Elizabeth Keller
Exponent, Inc.
17000 Science Drive, Suite 200
Bowie, MD 20715
January 8, 2016
 Exponent, Inc.
1505254.000 7849
January 8, 2016
Contents
Page
List of Figures iv
List of Tables vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
Limitations viii
Executive Summary ix
1 Background 1
1.1 Project History 1
1.2 Research Objectives and Project Scope 1
1.2.1 Review of Source Material for the Traditional Flow Requirement 2
1.2.2 Development of Full-Scale Flow Test Plan 2
1.2.3 Full-scale Flow Testing 3
1.2.4 Report and Summary of Best Practices 3
1.3 Project Assumptions 3
2 Literature Review 4
2.1 Current FDC Requirements 4
2.2 History of the NFPA 14 Requirement 5
2.3 Jurisdictional Adoptions and Procedures 6
2.3.1 Code Adoptions 7
2.3.2 Standpipe Firefighting Operations 10
2.4 Existing FDC Flow Test Data 11
2.5 Summary 12
3 Testing Program Summary 14
4 FDC Descriptions 16

4.1 Single FDCs 16
4.2 Siamese FDCs 17
1505254.000 7849
ii
January 8, 2016
4.3 Triamese FDC 17
5 Test Setup 23

5.1 Test Apparatus 24
5.1.1 Water Flow Activities 24
5.1.2 Supply Hose Line 28
5.1.3 Flow Test Assembly 28
5.1.4 Flow Rate Measurements 31
5.1.5 Pressure Loss Measurements 32
5.1.6 DAQ System 33
5.1.7 Still Photography and High Definition Video 33
5.2 Flow Test Protocols 33
6 Test Results 35
7 Analysis and Discussion 40

7.1 Single FDC 40
7.2 Siamese FDC 41
7.3 Triamese FDC 43
7.4 FDCs Pressure Loss Characteristics 44
7.5 Section Summary 47
8 Key Findings 48
9 Acknowledgements 50
Appendix A 51
1505254.000 7849
iii
January 8, 2016
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1 Map of municipalities included in survey 6

Figure 2 Single FDCs 17
Figure 3 Single flush FDC (FDC-1) 18
Figure 6 Siamese freestanding FDC (FDC-4) 19
Figure 7 Siamese freestanding FDC (FDC-4); view from bottom showing single clapper 20
Figure 8 Siamese projecting FDC (FDC-5) 20
Figure 9 Siamese projecting FDC (FDC-5); view through outlet showing double inlet
clappers 21
Figure 10 Triamese flush FDC (FDC-6) 21
Figure 11 Triamese flush FDC (FDC-6); view through inlet showing clappers 22
Figure 12 Fire department pumper apparatus 25
Figure 13 Test facility and drafting basin at MFRI 26
Figure 14 Test platform with single FDC and test apparatus secured to test platform 26
Figure 15 Test platform with siamese FDC and test apparatus secured to test platform 27
Figure 16 Test platform with triamese FDC and test apparatus secured to test platform 27
Figure 17 Flow test schematic for single FDC 29
Figure 18 Flow test schematic for siamese FDC 29
Figure 19 Flow test schematic for triamese FDC 30
Figure 20 Flow rate measurement with in-line averaging pitot tube 31
Figure 21 Single FDC flow test 36
Figure 22 Siamese FDC flow test 36
Figure 23 Triamese FDC flow test 37
Figure 24 Measurement layout 37
1505254.000 7849
iv
January 8, 2016
Figure 25 Single FDC pressure loss data 40

Figure 26 Siamese FDC pressure loss data 42
Figure 27 Triamese FDC pressure loss data 44
Figure 28 FDC pressure loss characteristics 46
Figure 29 Pumper control and pressure gauges 53
1505254.000 7849
v
January 8, 2016
List of Tables
Page
Table 1 Test Matrix 15

Table 2 FDC Descriptions 16
Table 3 Test Measurement Results 38
Table 4 FDC Pressure Loss Coefficients 45
Table 5 Pressure Data 51
1505254.000 7849
vi
January 8, 2016
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CFC California Fire Code

DAQ data acquisition system
FDC fire department connection
FM FM Global
FPRF Fire Protection Research Foundation
ft feet
gpm gallons per minute
hz hertz
in inch
IBC International Building Code
ICC International Code Council
IFC International Fire Code
lb pound
MFRI Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NH American National Fire Hose Screw Threads
NPT National Pipe Threads
SCH schedule
SOP standard operating procedures
UL Underwriters Laboratories
1505254.000 7849
vii
January 8, 2016
Limitations
At the request of the Fire Protection Research Foundation (FPRF), Exponent assessed fire
department connection (FDC) inlet flow requirements. This report summarizes a literature
review and full-scale flow testing of multiple types of FDCs. The scope of services performed
during this literature review and testing program may not adequately address the needs of other
users of this report, and any re-use of this report or its findings, conclusions, or
recommendations presented herein are at the sole risk of the user.
The full-scale flow test strategy and any recommendations made are strictly limited to the test
conditions included and detailed in this report. The combined effects (including, but not limited
to) of different environmental conditions, equipment, and scenarios are yet to be fully
understood and may not be inferred from these test results alone.
The findings formulated in this review are based on observations and information available at
the time of writing. The findings presented herein are made to a reasonable degree of scientific
and engineering certainty. If new data becomes available or there are perceived omissions or
misstatements in this report, we ask that they be brought to our attention as soon as possible so
that we have the opportunity to fully address them.
1505254.000 7849
viii
January 8, 2016
Executive Summary
This report summarizes full-scale flow testing of multiple types of FDCs. For an automatic
standpipe, an FDC is defined as, “A connection through which the fire department can pump the
secondary water supply to an automatic standpipe system at the required system demand.
Supplemental water can also be provided into the sprinkler system or other system furnishing
water for fire extinguishment to supplement existing water supplies.”1 In the case of a manual
standpipe, the FDC is defined as, “A connection through which the fire department can pump
the primary water supply to a manual standpipe system at the required system demand.”2
Industry standards, such as National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 14, Standard for the
Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems, and NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of
Sprinkler Systems, require FDCs be installed on standpipe systems and automatic sprinkler
systems, respectively.
Since 2007, NFPA 14 has required one (1) 2.5-inch diameter FDC inlet for every 250 gallons
per minute (gpm) of water flow to satisfy the standpipe system demand; however, there is
currently a lack of supporting scientific documentation to substantiate this flow limitation per
inlet. Flow testing to characterize the maximum actual flow rate that can be achieved for each
2.5-inch FDC inlet is required to support the current 250 gpm requirement or recommend a
change to the standard.
In summary, this project involved full-scale flow testing of multiple FDCs to determine actual
flow characteristics and pressure loss associated with various FDC assemblies. The tests
utilized suppression equipment consistent with real-world installations in structures and typical
procedures for emergency response to a structure fire, including the use of a fire department
pumper apparatus and hose to connect and flow water through the FDC assemblies.
1
NFPA 14-2013, Section 3.3.3.1.1.
2
NFPA 14-2013, Section 3.3.3.1.2.
1505254.000 7849
ix
January 8, 2016
The overriding goal of this research project was to provide a technical basis to the NFPA 14
Technical Committee for a possible change to the standard. A full listing of project
observations as they relate to the current NFPA guidance is provided in Section 8 of this report.
1505254.000 7849
x
January 8, 2016
1 Background
1.1 Project History
For an automatic standpipe, a fire department connection (FDC) is defined as, “A connection
through which the fire department can pump the secondary water supply to an automatic
standpipe system at the required system demand. Supplemental water can also be provided into
the sprinkler system or other system furnishing water for fire extinguishment to supplement
existing water supplies.”3 In the case of a manual standpipe, the FDC is defined as, “A
connection through which the fire department can pump the primary water supply to a manual
standpipe system at the required system demand.”4 Industry standards, such as National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 14, Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose
Systems, and NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems, require FDCs be
installed on standpipe systems and automatic sprinkler systems.
Since 2007, NFPA 14 has required one (1) 2.5-inch diameter FDC inlet for every 250 gallons
per minute (gpm) of water flow to satisfy the standpipe system demand; however, there is
currently a lack of supporting scientific documentation to substantiate this flow limitation per
inlet. Flow testing to characterize the maximum actual flow rate that can be achieved for each
2.5-inch FDC inlet is required to support the current 250 gpm requirement or recommend a
change to the standard.
1.2 Research Objectives and Project Scope
The overall project research objective was to provide a technical basis to the NFPA 14
Technical Committee for a possible change to the standard.
The scope of work included, but was not limited to, the following primary tasks:
1. A review of any source material for the traditional 250 gpm flow limitation for each 2.5-
inch diameter FDC inlet (see Section 2);
3
NFPA 14-2013, Section 3.3.3.1.1.
4
NFPA 14-2013, Section 3.3.3.1.2.
1505254.000 7849
1
January 8, 2016
2. Development of a full-scale test plan for flow testing to characterize the flow of water
into a 2.5-inch diameter inlet(s) on an FDC (see Sections 3 through 5);
3. Full-scale flow testing per the full-scale flow testing plan developed above, including
three separate types of FDCs (see Section 6); and
4. Report of final results and summary of recommendation(s) to the NFPA 14 Technical

Committee for the actual flow expected into a 2.5-inch FDC inlet, as well as the pressure
loss characteristics of the FDC.
A more detailed description of the tasks performed by Exponent to fulfill the project objectives
is provided below.
1.2.1 Review of Source Material for the Traditional Flow Requirement
Exponent collected, reviewed, and summarized available source material for the traditional 250
gpm flow limitation for each 2.5-inch diameter FDC inlet. This task included a review of
historical records documenting any proposed additions or changes to the relevant industry
standards (e.g., NFPA 13 and NFPA 14) in relation with the 250 gpm and 2.5-inch diameter
FDC inlets, as well as a review of the current standard operating procedures (SOPs) and/or code
requirements for the number of FDCs required by municipalities in varying regions throughout
the United States (see Section 2).
1.2.2 Development of Full-Scale Flow Test Plan
Exponent, in conjunction with the Project Technical Panel, developed an comprehensive

program for full-scale flow testing to characterize the flow of water into a 2.5-inch diameter
inlet on an FDC following the SOP established in NFPA 13E, Recommended Practice for Fire
Department Operations in Properties Protected by Sprinkler and Standpipe Systems. The
testing utilized a fire department pumper and standard hose to connect to the inlet(s) of multiple
types of FDCs instrumented with flow measuring devices to determine how much flow can be
achieved as a function of the pressure loss.
1505254.000 7849
2
January 8, 2016
1.2.3 Full-scale Flow Testing
The full-scale flow testing involved testing of multiple FDCs installed on a test manifold. All
tests utilized actual suppression equipment and procedures, including a fire department pumper
apparatus and hose. All water flow activities were conducted by qualified active duty
firefighters. Exponent collaborated with the Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute (MFRI), who
provided their facilities and expertise. Their training staff was utilized to provide technical
insight on standard FDC connection procedures and to facilitate the tests. Active duty
firefighters from MFRI performed all water flow activities.
1.2.4 Report and Summary of Best Practices
Exponent collected and processed the test data from the full-scale testing program in this formal
research engineering report. This report provides:
1. An overview of the project work to date;
2. A summary of the full-scale test data;
3. Comparison with current NFPA guidance; and
4. Identification of future potential research.
1.3 Project Assumptions
The following are key assumptions and limitations related to the test program:
 The FDCs procured for this test program are only a small set of samples intended to
provide a preliminary understanding of FDC hydraulic characteristics (i.e., flow and
pressure loss) in a broad range of FDC configurations. The test results from this study
are not intended to be representative of all FDCs available or used in systems.
 FDC flow rate data obtained from this test is specific to the upstream supply line
configuration and components used in this test program (i.e., hoses and fittings).
 These upstream supply components, including the fire department pumper, are typical
equipment used during fire department operations. Friction losses associated with the
upstream equipment are well documented.
1505254.000 7849
3
January 8, 2016
2 Literature Review
2.1 Current FDC Requirements
FDC requirements are currently defined by NFPA 14 for standpipe systems and NFPA 13 for
sprinkler systems. The purpose of a standpipe system is to eliminate the need for excessively
long runs of hose for manual firefighting inside a structure. Standpipes allow firefighters to
connect a hose to a permanently installed valve on the standpipe system inside a building and
fight a fire with a shortened amount of hose. FDCs allow firefighters to supplement, or fully
supply, the standpipe water flow from an external water source, such as a hydrant or pond,
through a pumper apparatus to the structure. The current (2013) edition of NFPA 14 requires
that the full standpipe system demand be available from FDCs, and states in Section 7.12.3:
Fire department connection sizes shall be based on the standpipe system demand and
shall include one 2 1⁄2 in. (65 mm) inlet per every 250 gpm (946 L/min).
In contrast, for sprinkler systems, the current (2013) edition of NFPA 13 states in Section 6.8.1,
that FDC(s) shall consist of two (2) 2.5-inch inlets, unless otherwise designated by the Authority
Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), or where piped to a 3-inch or smaller riser.5 Further clarification is
provided in the annex, which states that the purpose of the FDC is to supplement the water
supply, but not necessarily provide the entire sprinkler system demand. NFPA 13-2013 further
states that FDCs are not intended to deliver a specific volume of water.6
The FDC requirements in NFPA 14 are more explicit than the requirements in NFPA 13 and
specifically call for FDCs to have one (1) 2.5-inch diameter hose connection for each 250 gpm
of system demand. A typical standpipe system in a fully sprinkler protected facility may need
up to four (4) FDC inlets to satisfy the system demand. Where adopted, the requirements of
both standards must be met, including those requiring the more restrictive FDC capacity of 250
gpm for every 2.5-inch diameter inlet in a combined sprinkler/standpipe system.
5
NFPA 13-2013 Section 6.8.1
6
NFPA 13-2013 Section A.6.8.1
1505254.000 7849
4
January 8, 2016
NFPA 14 also requires manual standpipe systems be designed to provide 100 psi at the topmost
outlet, with hydraulic calculations terminating at the FDC.7 The intent of the standard is for a
fire department pump to be the source of flow and pressure8, however, pressure loss values for
the FDC itself are not provided in the standard and data from the manufacturers is currently
unavailable (see Section 2.4).
Although not directly related to FDC inlet flow, the 2016 edition of NFPA 20, Installation of
Stationary Pumps for Fire Protection, offers an interesting correlation of flow (pump rating in
gpm) to the number of hose valve outlets required. For pumps rated from 100 to 1,000 gpm, the
number of outlets required approximately follows a similar 250 gpm per 2.5-inch valve ratio as
prescribed in NFPA 14, however, there is more variability at certain higher flows (above 1,250
gpm), where greater than 250 gpm is allowed per each 2.5-inch diameter valve.9
2.2 History of the NFPA 14 Requirement
The current FDC requirement in Section 7.12.3 of NFPA 14 first appeared in the Report on
Proposals for the 2007 edition of the standard. The substantiation of the request states that the
proposal is the result of the Standpipe Task Group, which met in June 2004 and forwarded its
recommendations to the Technical Committee on Standpipes for action.10,11 Since it first
appeared in the 2007 edition of NFPA 14, Section 7.12.3 has resulted in proposals to remove the
restriction based on manual standpipe pumper tests that indicate 2.5-inch diameter inlets on an
FDC are capable of significantly more flow.12 One response to a proposal to modify the section
states that the restriction is intended to simplify and assist contractors in understanding how
many inlets to provide for firefighting operations, not just for testing.13 The 2.5-inch inlet flow
requirement of 250 gpm is understood to be a conservative value under ideal delivery conditions
and allows for redundancy for firefighting operations in the event that an FDC is lost.14 Other
7
NFPA 14-2013 Section 7.8.1.2.
8
NFPA 14-2013 Section A.7.8.1.2.
9
NFPA 20-2016 Table 4.27(a).
10
NFPA 14 Report on Proposals 2005, 14-58 Log #47.
11
Minutes have been requested for the June 2004 meeting of the Standpipe Task Group.
12
13
NFPA 14 Report on Comments 2012, 14-35 Log #38.
14
1505254.000 7849
5
January 8, 2016
reasons for the fixed inlet flow requirement include the anticipation of pressure loss possible
due to the location of fire hydrants and arrangement of supply hose from the hydrant to a
pumper and from the pumper to the FDC, including the distance traveled and elevation
changes.15
2.3 Jurisdictional Adoptions and Procedures
A survey of several major municipalities in varying regions throughout the United States was
conducted to determine their current code adoptions relative to standpipe systems and specific
requirements for number of FDC inlets serving standpipe systems, as shown in Figure 1. In
addition, literature was reviewed to determine the most common arrangement for equipment
supplying an FDC.
Figure 1 Map of municipalities included in survey
15
NFPA 14 Report on Comments 2012, 14-34 Log #9.
1505254.000 7849
6
January 8, 2016
2.3.1 Code Adoptions
2.3.1.1 Los Angeles, California
The 2014 City of Los Angeles Fire Code adopts portions of the California Fire Code (CFC) and
the 2012 edition of the International Code Council (ICC) International Fire Code (IFC).16
Section 905.2 states that standpipe systems shall be installed according to an amended version
of NFPA 14-2013. The amended portion does not affect the requirements of Section 7.12.3.17
The current Los Angeles Municipal Code (6th edition) outlines the amendments to NFPA 14 and
the amended portion does not affect the requirements of Section 7.12.3.18 In addition to Section
7.12.3, the previous edition of the Los Angeles Municipal Code also mandated the number of
FDCs based on the height of the highest outlet above the FDC and the number of the standpipe
risers.19 This requirement no longer applies to new construction after January 2014.
2.3.1.2 New York, New York
The 2014 New York City Fire Code, Section 905.2, states that standpipe systems shall be
installed in accordance with the construction codes, including the Building Code.20 The 2014
New York City Building Code, Section 905.2, states that standpipe systems shall be installed
according to an amended version of NFPA 14-2007. The amended portion deletes Section
7.12.3.21 Instead, the New York City Administrative Code, Section 27-940, requires at least one
siamese connection, an FDC with two-way inlets, for each 300 feet of exterior building wall.
2.3.1.3 Chicago, Illinois
The Municipal Code of Chicago, Title 15, Fire Prevention, Section 15-16-1020, requires at least
one siamese connection on each street exposure, to a limit of two street exposures. If any
16
http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/free_resources/2014LACityFire/14Fire_main.html, Section 101, as of
September 21, 2015.
17
2014 Los Angeles Fire Code Chapter 80, Referenced Standards.
18
City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, 6th Edition, Ordinance No. 182847, Section 94.2020.0, NFPA 14.
19
City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, 5th Edition, Ordinance No. 179324, Section 94.2020.8, Table 4.8.2
20
http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/apps/pdf_viewer/viewer.html?file=firecode_chap_09.pdf&section=firecode_2014,
as of September 21, 2015
21
2014 New York City Building Code Appendix Q, Modified National Standard for Automatic Sprinkler,
Standpipe, Fire Pump and Fire Alarm Systems.
1505254.000 7849
7
January 8, 2016
exposure is more than 250 feet long, two siamese connections are required, spaced at least 200
feet apart.22
2.3.1.4 Atlanta, Georgia
The state of Georgia adopts State Minimum Fire Safety Standards, based on the 2012 edition of
the IFC, with modifications. Section 905.1 states that standpipe systems shall be installed in
accordance with NFPA 14-2013, as amended. The amended portion does not affect the
requirements of Section 7.12.3, however, a new section (7.12.4) is added that states that the
location of FDCs shall be approved by the Fire Chief.23
2.3.1.5 Orlando, Florida
The Orlando Building Code incorporates the 2014 Florida Building Code24, which is based on
the 2012 edition of the ICC International Building Code (IBC). Section 905.2 states that
standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with the Florida Building Code and NFPA
14-2010.25 In addition, the City of Orlando Fire Prevention Code adopts NFPA 1, Uniform Fire
Code, Chapter 13, Fire Protection Systems, and amends Section 13.2.2.1 to state that two (2)
siamese connections shall be provided in the path of fire department access, one at each end of
the building or as remotely located as possible.26
2.3.1.6 Kansas City, Missouri
The Kansas City, Missouri Code of Ordinances adopts the 2012 edition of the IBC, with
amendments.27,28 Section 905.2 of the 2012 IBC states that standpipe systems shall be installed
in accordance with NFPA 14-2010. The amended portion does not affect the requirements of
NFPA 14 Section 7.12.3.
22
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagobuilding/buildingcodeandrelatedexcerptsofthemunic?
f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagobuilding_il; Current through March 18, 2015.
23
Georgia Minimum Fire Safety Standards (Chapter 120-3-3), effective January 1, 2015.
24
Orlando, Florida Code of Ordinances, Supplement 57, Update 2, Chapter 13, Building Code.
25
Florida Building Code, Building, 5th Edition (2014), Chapter 35, Referenced Standards.
26
Orlando, Florida Code of Ordinances, Supplement 57, Update 2, Chapter 24, Fire Prevention Code, Section
24.27.
27
Kansas City, Missouri Code of Ordinances, Article II, Sec. 18-40.
28
The Kansas City, Missouri Code of Ordinances further adopts the 2000 edition of the IFC, with amendments, in
Sec. 26-100, however, the 2012 edition of the IBC is the more recent and restrictive adoption of NFPA 14, and
therefore prevails.
1505254.000 7849
8
January 8, 2016
2.3.1.7 Fort Worth, Texas
The Fire Code of the City of Forth Worth adopts the 2009 edition of the IFC, with
amendments.29 Section 905.2 of the 2009 IFC states that standpipe systems shall be installed in
accordance with NFPA 14-2007. The amended portion does not affect the requirements of
NFPA 14 Section 7.12.3.
2.3.1.8 Seattle, Washington
The Seattle Building Code adopts the 2012 edition of the IBC, with amendments.30 Section
905.2 of the 2012 IBC states that standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with NFPA
14-2010.
2.3.1.9 District of Columbia
The 2013 District of Columbia Fire Code is based on the 2012 edition of the IFC.31 Section
905.2 states that standpipe systems shall be installed according to NFPA 14-2010, with
exceptions. The exceptions do not affect the requirements of Section 7.12.3.32
2.3.1.10 Las Vegas, Nevada
The Municipal Code of the City of Las Vegas adopts the 2012 edition of the IFC, along with the
Southern Nevada Fire Code Amendments.33 Section 905.2 of the 2012 IFC states that standpipe
systems shall be installed according to NFPA 14-2010. The Southern Nevada Fire Code
Amendments change the requirements of Section 7.12.3 to address the sprinkler system demand
(if a combined system); however, they do not affect the inlet flow requirement of 250 gpm. The
requirements of 7.8.1.1 are changed to require manual standpipe systems be designed to provide
125 psi (instead of 100 psi) at the topmost outlet.34
29
Fort Worth Ordinance Number 19607-03-2011.
30
Seattle Municipal Code, Supplement 2, Update 2, Title 22, Subtitle I, Building Code.
31
http://www.ecodes.biz/ecodes_support/Free_Resources/2013DistrictofColumbia/13Fire/13DCFire_main.html, ,
as of September 21, 2015
32
2013 District of Columbia Fire Code, Chapter 80, Referenced Standards.
33
Municipal Code of the City of Las Vegas, Supplement 23, Title 16, Chapter 16.16, International Fire Code.
34
2014 Southern Nevada Fire Code Amendments.
1505254.000 7849
9
January 8, 2016
2.3.2 Standpipe Firefighting Operations
A review of the literature revealed that there is scarce information currently published regarding
the arrangement and connection of hose from the water source, through a fire department
pumper apparatus, to an FDC. A research study by the U.S. Fire Administration recommends
that fire departments have water supply SOPs that establish which units are responsible for
supplying FDCs, possibly including special pumping procedures. The study cites one SOP that
includes details for water supply operations: Dallas, Texas specifies that two pumpers supply
the standpipe system for redundancy or in case higher pressure is required. Dallas also does not
allow the use of “large diameter hose” to connect the pumper to the standpipe.35
There are many studies detailing standpipe operations, however, they focus on the building
interior connections and the attack hose and nozzle configurations. A research study by the
Oakland Fire Department aimed at updating their high-rise firefighting procedures surveyed ten
(10) major municipalities and determined that a majority of the fire departments surveyed use a
2.5-inch hose with a 1 1/8-inch smooth bore nozzle for standpipe operations, however, some use
a 1 ¾-inch hose with a 7/8-inch smooth bore nozzle. The research study further determined that
a high-rise building standpipe system must be augmented by fire apparatus for effective
firefighting practices.36 A similar research study performed by the New Orleans Fire
Department surveyed 12 major municipalities and found that most departments surveyed only
have a casual reference to water supply operations in their SOPs, which instructs the first due
engine to connect to the FDC and supply the system with “appropriate pressure.” Field tests
conducted during the same research study determined that a 1,250 gpm dual stage pump in a
pumper apparatus could develop outlet pressures of 200 to 600 psi.37
The 2015 edition of NFPA 13E provides basic procedures and information for use in fire
department operations involved with automatic sprinkler and standpipe systems. Figure 4.3.4(b)
specifies a minimum 2.5-inch hose to supply the FDC from the pumper for supplementing an
35
U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series, “Special Report: Operational Considerations for Highrise
Firefighting.” USFA-TR-082/April 1996.
36
Edwards, J. “High-Rise Firefighting: An Analysis of Procedures for Operational Effectiveness.” Oakland Fire
Department, Oakland, CA.
37
Savelle, G. “Fire Department High Pressure Pumping Operations at High-Rise Fires.” New Orleans Fire
Department, New Orleans, LA.
1505254.000 7849
10
January 8, 2016
automatic sprinkler system; however, a minimum hose diameter is not specified for standpipe
operations. Instead, Section 6.3.3 states that lines from a pumper should be connected and
charged to the pressure required to give the desired working pressure on the standpipe outlets
being used. In addition, Section 6.3.4.1 states that the pump operator should consider the
following factors in calculating the pump discharge pressure:
 Friction loss in the hose supplying the FDC;
 Friction loss in the standpipe system itself;
 Pressure loss due to the elevation of the nozzles;
 The number and details of the attack lines operating from the standpipe; and
 The pressure desired at the nozzles.
Pressure losses for fire hoses of various lengths and diameters are well characterized and
documented38, allowing the supply hose diameter to be chosen based on the needs of the fire
department.
2.4 Existing FDC Flow Test Data
Data sheets from six (6) FDC manufacturers were reviewed for existing flow test data or friction
loss information. Of the approximately 30 models reviewed (most with multiple configurations,
i.e., clappers, inlet arrangement, etc.), none currently provide any flow test data or friction loss
information. Most provide (minimum) inlet flow capacities in line with the NFPA 14
requirement for one (1) 2.5-inch diameter inlet per 250 gpm of flow. Three manufacturers
provided pressure ratings on at least one FDC, ranging from 175 to 500 psi.
FDC data sheets generally referenced listings from Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and/or
approval by FM Global (FM). UL 405, Standard for Fire Department Connection Devices, was
reviewed and references NFPA 14 for the installation of FDCs for standpipe systems. UL 405
does not provide flow test data; however, it does specify that FDCs are tested to 300 psig for
38
Scheffey, J.L., et al., Determination of Fire Hose Friction Loss Characteristics, The Fire Protection Research
Foundation, October 2013.
1505254.000 7849
11
January 8, 2016
leakage and strength of body. 39 In addition, FM 1530, Approval Standard for Fire Department
Connections, was reviewed and also does not provide flow test data; however, it specifies that
the minimum rated working pressure shall be 175 psig.40
2.5 Summary
FDCs allow firefighters to supplement, or fully supply, the standpipe water flow from an
external water source, such as a hydrant or pond, through a pumper apparatus to a structure.
NFPA 14 requires that the full standpipe system demand be available from FDCs and requires
one (1) 2.5-inch diameter inlet for every 250 gpm of standpipe demand. The FDC requirements
in NFPA 14 are more prescriptive than those in NFPA 13. In a combined sprinkler/standpipe
system, the more restrictive requirements of NFPA 14 generally apply. In addition, NFPA 14
requires manual standpipe systems be designed to provide 100 psi at the topmost outlet, with
hydraulic calculations terminating at the FDC, however, pressure loss values for the FDC itself
are not provided in the standards and data from the manufacturers is currently unavailable.
Several major municipalities in varying regions throughout the United States were surveyed to
determine their current code adoptions relative to standpipe systems and specific requirements
for number of FDC inlets serving standpipe systems. Of the 10 municipalities surveyed, the
majority adopt NFPA 14 with no modification of the default NFPA 14 FDC inlet flow
requirements. Municipalities that do not adopt NFPA 14 requirements generally use the number
of exposures and length of the building exposure side to determine the number of FDCs
required.
While the current NFPA requirements do not include the number and the length of the building
exposure sides as a factor to determine the number of required FDCs, it is recognized that
certain jurisdictions highlight the need for redundancy of FDCs by taking the building exposures
into consideration. Based on this information, redundancy appears to be an important factor for
overall system reliability.
39
UL 405, 6th Edition, August 23, 2013.
40
FM 1530, August 1970.
1505254.000 7849
12
January 8, 2016
In addition, literature was reviewed to determine the most common arrangement for equipment
supplying an FDC. Although there is a lack of information specific to water supply operations
at high-rise structure fires, it was determined that pressure losses for fire hoses of various
lengths and diameters are well characterized and documented, allowing pressure loss of the
FDC component to be calculated independent of the upstream supply components.
1505254.000 7849
13
January 8, 2016
3 Testing Program Summary
Exponent, with guidance from the Project Technical Panel, conducted a series of flow tests on
common FDCs with the following goals: 1) to determine the maximum flow rate that can be
achieved for each 2.5 inch diameter inlet and 2) to measure the pressure losses associated with
the FDCs as a function of flow rate. Three common types of FDCs were acquired for this test
program, including single, siamese (two-way inlets), and triamese (three-way inlets). A more
detailed description of each acquired FDC is provided in Section 4.
A fire department pumper, Model 2011 Pierce Arrow XT, rated at 2,000 gpm capacity with a
minimum net pressure of 150 psi was utilized to supply water flow from a municipal fire
hydrant. Each FDC inlet was connected via a standard 2.5-inch diameter hose with a 100-foot
length (two 50-foot sections). A pressure transducer was instrumented upstream of each FDC
inlet. Downstream of the FDC outlet, an in-line averaging pitot tube was instrumented to obtain
the total flow rate as well as the pressure loss across the FDC assembly. With the exception of
pressure readings on the supply hoses from the fire department pumper and the differential
pressure on the in-line averaging pitot tube, all pressure measurements were recorded via a data
acquisition system to allow for real-time monitoring of the flow condition to ensure pressure
data during the steady state flow conditions were captured at a target flow rate.
For each flow test, water was charged to the FDC inlet(s) starting from a low flow condition to
develop bulk flow (no greater than 150 gpm), then gradually increased to a target flow rate for
the FDC assembly as outlined in the test matrix (see Table 1). Where multiple FDC inlets were
tested simultaneously, the flow was equally distributed to each inlet. At the respective target
flow rate, a minimum of 2 minutes was allowed for a steady state condition to develop. After a
maximum flow was reached, the flow was gradually decreased to a lower target flow rate and
the measurements were repeated. The achievement of the maximum flow was determined based
on the flow capacity available of from the hydrant, as well as the general safety observations
during the test. As a safety precaution, due to a potential for high velocity flow, it was
1505254.000 7849
14
January 8, 2016
determined that the theoretical maximum flow was approximately 750 gpm per each 2.5-inch
diameter FDC inlet (three times the current prescriptive requirement of 250 gpm).41
A detailed description of the test apparatus setup, measurements, and the test protocols is
provided in Section 5.
Table 1 Test Matrix
Test Flow to Inlet

FDC ID FDC Type Test ID* Target Flow [gpm]
No. Number
1 FDC-1 Single FDC-1-1 1 250, 500, Max
4 FDC-4-1 1 250, 500, Max
FDC-4 Siamese
5 FDC-4-2 1 and 2 500, 1000, Max
6 FDC-5-1 1 250, 500, Max
FDC-5 Siamese
7 FDC-5-2 1 and 2 500, 1000, Max
8 FDC-6-1A 1 250, 500, Max
9 FDC-6-1B 2 (center inlet) 250, 500, Max
FDC-6 Triamese
10 FDC-6-2 1 and 2 500, 1000, Max
11 FDC-6-3 1, 2, and 3 750, 1200, Max
* Test ID nomenclature used in this test program follows the format: XXX-X-Y, where “XXX-X” is FDC ID and “-Y”
represents the number of charged inlet(s).
41
Water flow at 750 gpm through a 2.5-inch diameter conduit will result in a flow velocity of approximately 49
ft/s.
1505254.000 7849
15
January 8, 2016
4 FDC Descriptions
In conjunction with FPRF, Exponent procured a total of six (6) FDCs for testing. A description
of each FDC procured is provided in Table 2, below.
Table 2 FDC Descriptions
FDC ID FDC Type Description Figure Manufacturer

Flush single inlet
FDC-1 Single Material: Brass Figure 3 A
Size: 2.5-in x 2.5-in
Flush single inlet
FDC-2 Single Material: Brass Figure 4 B
Flush single inlet
FDC-3 Single Material: Brass Figure 5 C
Freestanding siamese with single
clapper two-way inlet Figure 6
FDC-4 Siamese B
Material: Brass Figure 7
Size: 4-in x 2.5-in x 2.5-in
Projecting siamese with double
clappers two-way inlets Figure 8
FDC-5 Siamese D
Material: Brass Figure 9
Size: 4-in x 2.5-in x 2.5-in
Flush triamese with triple clappers
three-way inlets
FDC-6 Triamese Figure 10 B
Material: Brass
Size: 6-in x 2.5-in x2.5-in x 2.5-in
4.1 Single FDCs
Three (3) single FDCs (FDC-1, FDC-2, and FDC-3) from three different manufacturers were
procured for testing. All three FDCs procured were flush type with a 2.5-inch American
National Fire Hose Screw Threads (NH) swivel female inlet and a 2.5-inch National Pipe
Thread (NPT) female outlet. The appearances and dimensions of all three single FDCs were
very similar, but FDC-1 was slightly longer, while FDC-2 and FDC-3 were almost identical.
All three single FDCs were equipped with rubber gaskets on the inlet side, although there were
1505254.000 7849
16
January 8, 2016
slight variations in gasket thickness and width among the three single FDCs. A comparison of
the single FDCs is provided in Figure 2. None of the single FDCs were equipped with clappers.
4.2 Siamese FDCs
Two (2) siamese FDCs (FDC-4 and FDC-5) from different manufacturers were obtained for
testing. Both siamese FDCs contained two (2) 2.5-inch NH swivel female inlets equipped with
rubber gaskets and a 4-inch NPT female outlet. FDC-4 was a freestanding type (integral 90°
orientation) with a single inlet clapper, as shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7. FDC-5 was a
projecting type with dual inlet clappers, as shown in Figure 8 and Figure 9. The clappers in
both siamese FDCs (FDC-4 and FDC-5) were not equipped with a spring-loaded closing
mechanism (snoot type clappers).
4.3 Triamese FDC
One triamese FDC (FDC-6) was procured for testing, as shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11. The
triamese FDC was a flush wall-mount type with three (3) 2.5-inch female NPT inlets with triple
inlet clappers and a 6-inch NPT female outlet. No rubber gasket was provided with the triamese
FDC and the clappers were not equipped with a spring-loaded closing mechanism.
FDC-1 FDC-2 FDC-3
Figure 2 Single FDCs
1505254.000 7849
17
January 8, 2016
Figure 3 Single flush FDC (FDC-1)
1505254.000 7849
18
January 8, 2016
Figure 6 Siamese freestanding FDC (FDC-4)
1505254.000 7849
19
January 8, 2016
Figure 7 Siamese freestanding FDC (FDC-4); view from bottom showing single clapper
Figure 8 Siamese projecting FDC (FDC-5)
1505254.000 7849
20
January 8, 2016
Figure 9 Siamese projecting FDC (FDC-5); view through outlet showing double inlet clappers
Figure 10 Triamese flush FDC (FDC-6)
1505254.000 7849
21
January 8, 2016
Figure 11 Triamese flush FDC (FDC-6); view through inlet showing clappers
1505254.000 7849
22
January 8, 2016
5 Test Setup
The FDC flow testing was performed at MFRI in College Park, Maryland.42 The overall intent
of the testing was to provide a repeatable scientific experiment that characterizes the flow
characteristics at the maximum actual flow rate for each 2.5-inch FDC inlet. The data generated
was then used to support the current 250 gpm requirement or recommend a change to the
standard. The following are key assumptions related to the testing:
 The FDCs procured for this test program are only a small set of samples intended to
provide a preliminary understanding of FDC hydraulic characteristics (i.e., flow rate and
pressure loss). The test results from this study are not representative of all available
FDCs of similar types.
 FDC flow rate data obtained from this test program is specific to the upstream supply
line configuration and components used in this test program (i.e., hoses and fittings).
 These upstream supply components are commonly used during fire department
operations and their friction loss characteristics are well documented.
A series of flow tests were conducted on common FDCs with the following objectives: 1) to
determine the maximum flow rate that can be achieved for each 2.5 inch inlet and 2) to measure
the pressure losses associated with each type of FDC as a function of the flow rate. Data
collected during these tests included:
 Total FDC discharge flow rates;
 Pressure losses;
 Test observations;
 Still photography; and
 High definition video.
42
MFRI provides a world class test facility for research, development, and testing of fire protection systems and
fire service technologies in live-fire conditions.
1505254.000 7849
23
January 8, 2016
MFRI provided the facility for the flow tests, the fire department apparatus and water supply,
and qualified personnel to conduct the actual water flow.
Exponent performed the following tasks:
 Test observations and data monitoring;
 Providing and installing the flow rate and pressure measurement devices and data
acquisition system (DAQ);
 Still photography; and
 High definition video recording;
5.1 Test Apparatus
The test apparatus setup is described herein as follows.
5.1.1 Water Flow Activities
Water flow activities were handled by MFRI. All tests were conducted by three active duty
firefighters utilizing a fire department pumper43, Model 2011 Pierce Arrow XT, rated at 2,000
gpm capacity and capable of charging water through up to six (6) 2.5-inch hose lines with a
minimum net pressure of 150 psi per NFPA 1901, Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus.
The fire department pumper used in this test program is shown in Figure 12.
The test apparatus utilized water from a municipal hydrant producing a static pressure of 100 psi
and a residual pressure of 50 psi at a 3,757 gpm flow rate.44 Water was discharged into a
collection funnel, allowing the water to flow into a drafting basin with its drainage open during
testing (see Figure 13 and Figure 14).
43
Engine 122, College Park Volunteer Fire Department, Maryland.
44
Hydrant Test – Hydrant 62, dated 6/1/2013
1505254.000 7849
24
January 8, 2016
Figure 12 Fire department pumper apparatus
1505254.000 7849
25
January 8, 2016
Figure 13 Test facility and drafting basin at MFRI
Figure 14 Test platform with single FDC and test apparatus secured to test platform
1505254.000 7849
26
January 8, 2016
Figure 15 Test platform with siamese FDC and test apparatus secured to test platform
Figure 16 Test platform with triamese FDC and test apparatus secured to test platform
1505254.000 7849
27
January 8, 2016
5.1.2 Supply Hose Line
In all flow tests, 2.5-inch diameter double-jacket rubber-lined standard fire hoses with a total
length of 100 feet (two 50-foot length sections) were used to supply water to the FDC inlets.
The use of a 2.5-inch diameter hose eliminated the need for any hose adapters before connecting
to the FDC inlets and the 100-foot length was required given the location of the fire department
pumper and the test apparatus during the test.
While the total flow rate obtained from this test program is specific to the selected hose size and
configuration, the pressure loss for each FDC is a function of the flow rate and is independent of
the hose configuration or pressure losses from the upstream components. Pressure losses for
fire hoses with different lengths and diameters are well characterized and documented.45
5.1.3 Flow Test Assembly
During each flow test, the FDC assembly was secured to the test platform to allow for safely
discharging water into the drafting basin. A pressure transducer was instrumented upstream of
each FDC inlet. Downstream of the FDC outlet, an in-line averaging pitot tube was
instrumented to obtain the total flow rate, as well as the pressure drop across the FDC. The
inlets and outlet of the FDC were connected with steel pipes with appropriate lengths to allow
for accurate pressure measurements at approximately five times the pipe diameter (5D) length
upstream and up to ten times the pipe diameter (10D) length downstream of the FDC. With the
exception of pressure readings on the supply hoses from the fire department pumper and the
differential pressure on the in-line averaging pitot tube, all pressure measurements were
recorded via a data acquisition system to allow for real-time monitoring of the flow condition to
ensure pressure data during the steady state flow conditions were captured at a target flow rate.
Calibrated pressure transducers (Omega PX309) were used for the pressure measurements in
this test program. Figure 17 through Figure 19 provide the schematics for the flow test
assembly.
45
Scheffey, J.L., et al., Determination of Fire Hose Friction Loss Characteristics, The Fire Protection Research
Foundation, October 2013.
1505254.000 7849
28
January 8, 2016
In-line Pitot
Pressure
Transducer Manometer for Flow
Pumper Rate Measurement
PU1,n
PD, t
Pp1 Single FDC
Discharge
to Drafting
2.5” Hose Line Basin
100 ft 1 ft (~5D) 2 ft (~10D)
2.5” Steel Pipe 2.5” Steel Pipe
Supply from
Street
Hydrant
NTS
Figure 17 Flow test schematic for single FDC
Pressure In-line Pitot

Pumper PU1, n Rate Measurement
Pp1 2.5” Hose Line Siamese FDC PD, t

Discharge
100 ft 1 ft (~5D) to Drafting
3 ft (~10D) Basin
Pp2 2.5” Hose Line
2.5” Steel Pipes 4” Steel Pipe
Supply from
Street PU2, n
Hydrant
NTS
Figure 18 Flow test schematic for siamese FDC
1505254.000 7849
29
January 8, 2016
Pressure
In-line Pitot
Transducer
Pumper PU1, n Manometer for Flow
Triamese FDC Rate Measurement
Pp1 2.5” Hose Line PD, t
1 ft (~5D)
Discharge
Pp2 PU2, n to Drafting
100 ft
Basin
3 ft (~6D)
Pp3 2.5” Hose Line 6” Steel Pipe
Supply from 2.5” Steel Pipes
Street
Hydrant PU3, n
NTS
Figure 19 Flow test schematic for triamese FDC
1505254.000 7849
30
January 8, 2016
5.1.4 Flow Rate Measurements
During the flow testing, the FDC flow rate was determined based on the measurements of the
differential pressure between the total pressure (stagnation pressure) and the normal pressure
using an in-line averaging pitot tube instrumented downstream of the FDC. Three different
models of in-line averaging pitot tubes (Dwyer DS-300-2-1/2, DS-300-4, and D-S400-6) were
used depending upon the type and outlet size of the FDC. A schematic for the in-line pitot tube
is shown in Figure 20.
Connecting to digital manometer
Connecting to digital
manometer and
pressure transducer
Flow
Direction
Figure 20 Flow rate measurement with in-line averaging pitot tube
A calibrated digital manometer (Dwyer 477-7-FM) was used to measure the differential
pressures at the in-line pitot tube, which were then used to calculate the total discharge flow rate
based on the following expression46:
46
Dwyer Instruments, Inc. DS Flow Sensors – Installation and Operating Instructions Flow Calculations, FR72-
440451-01 Rev. 2, July 2004
1505254.000 7849
31
January 8, 2016
5.668 ∙ ∆ / (1)
where Q is the flow rate expressed in gpm; K is the flow coefficient (0.62 for a 2.5-inch pipe,
0.67 for a 4-inch pipe, and 0.71 for a 6-inch pipe); D is the inside pipe diameter in inches; P is
the differential pressure in inches-of-water-column; and Sf is specific gravity of water at the
flowing condition.47
5.1.5 Pressure Loss Measurements
In general, pressure losses through the FDC can be theoretically estimated based on the
difference between the total pressures measured upstream and downstream of a hydraulic
component when the change in elevation is negligible. The total pressure (Pt) is given as a sum
of the normal pressure (Pn) and the velocity pressure (Pv):
(2)
The normal pressure is the pressure acting against, or perpendicular to the hydraulic component
wall. The velocity pressure is a measure of the energy required to keep the water in motion.
The velocity pressure always acts in the direction of water flow, while the normal pressure acts
perpendicular to the velocity pressure.48
For this test program, the pressure loss associated with each FDC was determined based on the
difference between the total pressure obtained from upstream and downstream of the FDC and
the pressure losses associated with the steel pipes upstream and downstream of the FDC. The
downstream total pressure was directly measured using the in-line averaging pitot tube, whereas
the upstream total pressure was estimated from the summation of the measured upstream
normal pressure and the calculated velocity pressure, which is given as49:
0.001123 / (3)
47
At the time of the test, water temperature was approximately 60°F corresponding to the specific gravity of 1.
48
NFPA, Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook, 10th Edition, p. 800
49
NFPA 13-2013, Section 23.4.2.2
1505254.000 7849
32
January 8, 2016
where Q is inlet flow rate in gpm and D is the inside pipe diameter in inches. For single FDCs,
the inlet flow rate is equal to the measured discharge flow rate. For the siamese and triamese
FDCs, the inlet flow rate is determined based on the assumption that the inlet flows are equally
divided and conservation of mass applies (i.e., the sum of the inlet flows equals the discharge
flow).
5.1.6 DAQ System
With the exception of pressure readings on the supply hoses from the fire department pumper
and the differential pressure on the in-line averaging pitot tube, all pressure measurements were
recorded via a Fluke 2638A Hydra Series III DAQ system to allow for real-time monitoring of
the pressures and flow conditions at one second intervals (1 Hz). The DAQ system was used to
capture the pressure data during steady state flow conditions, as well as to post process the
pressure data to minimize the potential effect of vibration and other measurement noise during
the flow testing.
5.1.7 Still Photography and High Definition Video
Still photography and high definition video were recorded during the flow testing. Still
photography was captured using a Nikon D3300 digital camera and high definition video was
captured using multiple Canon Vixia high definition camcorders.
5.2 Flow Test Protocols
The operation of the fire department apparatus and water flow activities were conducted by
MFRI and qualified personnel (i.e., active duty firefighters) in accordance with NFPA 13E.
Exponent instrumented the measurement devices, recorded observations, and monitored the data
collected during testing.
The test preparation protocol was as follows:
1. Connect the FDC inlet(s) and outlet to the upstream and downstream steel pipe sections
that were pre-instrumented with appropriate pressure transducers and an in-line pitot
tube.
1505254.000 7849
33
January 8, 2016
2. Secure the FDC and test apparatus to the test platform.
3. Connect the 2.5-inch supply hose lines to the inlet steel pipe sections and to the fire
department pumper.
4. Straighten the supply hose line as much as possible to minimize the pressure loss.
5. Ensure the drainage to the drafting basin and the general test assembly are in proper
operating condition.
6. Initialize and ensure proper operation of the fire department pumper (conducted by
MFRI) in accordance with NFPA 1901, NFPA 13E, and SOPs, as approved by MFRI
and the qualified operator(s).
The test protocol was as follows:
1. Start the DAQ system and allow for background data to be collected for a minimum of 1
minute.
2. Start high definition video recording simultaneously with data collection.
3. Charge water to the FDC inlet(s) with low flow condition (no greater than 150 gpm) and
ensure no or minimal leaks on the test assembly and proper discharge of water to the
drafting basin.
4. Monitor the flow rate on DAQ system and gradually increase the flow to the target flow
rates as outlined in the test matrix.
5. Record the pressure readings at the pumper for the upstream supply hose.
6. When the target flow rate is reached, allow a minimum of 2 minutes for steady state flow
conditions to develop.
7. Repeat Steps 4 and 5 to collect data at the next target flow rate.
8. After the maximum flow is reached and the data collected, gradually decrease to a lower
target flow rate and repeat the measurements.
9. Still photographs were recorded throughout the test as necessary.
10. After the completion of all data collection for all target flow rates, stop the fire
department pumper, and turn of all data collection equipment.
1505254.000 7849
34
January 8, 2016
6 Test Results
The following section is a presentation of the data collected during the flow tests along with a
brief discussion of the data processing to determine the flow rate achieved during the test and
ultimately the pressure losses associated with the FDCs.
The FDC flow testing was performed at the MFRI facility located at 4500 Paint Brach Parkway,
College Park, Maryland 20742 on October 26, 2015. A total of eleven (11) tests were
conducted; three (3) tests using three single FDCs (FDC-1 through FDC-3), four (4) tests using
two siamese FDCs (FDC-4 and FDC-5), and four (4) tests using one triamese FDCs (FDC-6).
Figure 21 through Figure 23 provide representative views of the flow testing for each FDC type.
As shown in Figure 24, the differential pressures were measured using a digital manometer at
the in-line pitot tube. Using Eq. (1) the differential pressures were then used to calculate the
total discharge flow rates presented in Table 3.
The pressure measurements in this test program included the total pressure measured
downstream of the discharge pipe ( , ) and the normal pressure(s) measured upstream of the
respective inlet pipe(s) ( , , , and , ). At their respective flow rates, the pressures
were recorded for a minimum of two minutes to ensure that steady state flow conditions were
established. The average pressure data over the steady state period are reported in Table 3.
Additionally, detailed pressure data recorded at the pumper for each test is provided in
Appendix A, for reference. The pressure losses associated with the FDCs were determined
directly based on the pressure measurement downstream of the hose lines, as discussed in this
section, independently from the pumper pressure data.
1505254.000 7849
35
January 8, 2016
Figure 21 Single FDC flow test
Figure 22 Siamese FDC flow test
1505254.000 7849
36
January 8, 2016
Figure 23 Triamese FDC flow test
In-line Pitot
Pressure
Rate Measurement
PU1, n
From PD, t
FDC
Pumper
2.5” Hose Inlet pipe Discharge pipe Discharge
Inlet pipe FDC Discharge pipe

pressure loss Pressure Loss pressure loss
∆ , ) (∆ ) ∆ , )
NTS
Figure 24 Measurement layout
1505254.000 7849
37
January 8, 2016
Table 3 Test Measurement Results
Test ID Flow Total Average Pressure [psi]50 FDC

Manometer
FDC to Discharge Pressure
[inch-H2O] PD,t PU1,n PU2,n PU3,n
Type Inlet(s) Flow [gpm] Loss [psi]
160 271 3.4 2.0 ‐ ‐ 0.2
FDC‐1‐1
1 551 503 12.2 7.6 ‐ ‐ 1.2
Single
1047 693 23.6 14.0 ‐ ‐ 1.3
172 281 3.7 2.0 ‐ ‐ 0.0
FDC‐2‐1 495 478 10.3 5.7 ‐ ‐ 0.6
1
Single 503 481 11.0 6.1 ‐ ‐ 0.4
926 652 24.7 15.6 ‐ ‐ 0.6
118 233 3.5 2.3 ‐ ‐ 0.0
FDC‐3‐1 551 503 11.4 6.6 ‐ ‐ 0.9
1
Single 962 664 20.7 13.9 ‐ ‐ 3.3
1167 732 26.4 17.6 ‐ ‐ 3.5
53 448 1.2 1.1 ‐ ‐ 5.5
FDC‐4‐1 101 642 2.4 8.5 ‐ ‐ 14.6
1
Siamese 109 618 2.7 5.8 ‐ ‐ 16.7
153 761 3.2 12.0 ‐ ‐ 24.9
216 906 5.8 8.5 8.3 ‐ 8.1
304 1073 7.7 9.3 10.5 ‐ 9.2
FDC‐4‐2
2 401 1232 10.1 12.5 14.2 ‐ 12.5
Siamese
478 1345 11.9 17.5 16.3 ‐ 17.5
588 1492 13.7 19.3 19.1 ‐ 20.3
80 552 1.4 1.3 ‐ ‐ 8.3
FDC‐5‐1
1 129 700 3.1 6.5 ‐ ‐ 17.1
Siamese
159 777 4.1 8.2 ‐ ‐ 20.9
198 865 5.1 8.6 8.1* ‐ 8.4
FDC‐5‐2 255 982 6.9 19.4 19.7* ‐ 18.8
2
Siamese 445 1298 10.5 22.2 23.8* ‐ 22.8
551 1445 12.8 27.8 24.4* ‐ 28.9
FDC‐6‐1A 14 554 0.28 7.4 ‐ ‐ 15.8
1
Triamese 15 566 0.35 11.4 ‐ ‐ 20.1
44 979 0.9 10.6 ‐ ‐ 36.9
FDC‐6‐1B
1 46 1006 0.9 10.4 ‐ ‐ 38.3
Triamese
53 1076 1.8 5.9 ‐ ‐ 36.9
47 1012 1.1 2.3 0.2* ‐ 8.4
FDC‐6‐2 63 1171 1.2 6.0 2.0* ‐ 14.4
2
Triamese 98 1467 1.8 10.4 10.4* ‐ 23.7
135 1717 2.6 16.8 13.8* ‐ 35.0
92 1420 2.3 7.5 5.1 7.4* 11.5
98 1462 1.9 5.6 5.6 4.5* 10.4
FDC‐6‐3
3 139 1748 3.5 12.6 9.2 8.3* 18.6
Triamese
141 1755 3.5 10.7 9.2 9.1* 16.7
151 1818 3.7 12.4 9.6 8.1* 18.9
50
Note (*) Supplemental technique is used to determine certain upstream pressure due to cavitation created by hose orientations
during testing.
1505254.000 7849
38
January 8, 2016
The maximum flow for each test was based on the available flow capacity at the hydrant and
additional safety considerations. For this test program, the maximum flows were measured at
732 gpm for single FDCs. For the siamese and the triamese FDCs, the maximum flow rates
achieved were 1,492 gpm and 1,818 gpm, respectively, when all inlets were simultaneously
charged.
As presented in Table 3, the normal pressure(s) measured upstream of the inlet pipe(s) ( , ,
, , and , ) for siamese and triamese FDCs are relatively similar at their respective flow
rates, with a variation of up to ±3 psi. This observation is supportive of the fact that the inlet
flows to the siamese and triamese FDCs are equally split. As such, only , was used to
further calculate the upstream normal pressure ( , ) based on Eq. (3) as follows:
, , 0.001123 / (4)
where is inlet flow (gpm), and is inside diameter of the inlet pipe (in). In addition, the
pressure loss associated with the FDC is given as:
∆ , ∆ , , ∆ , (5)
where ∆ , and ∆ , are the pressure losses associated with the inlet and outlet pipes
respectively. The pressure loss attributed to the fully developed, steady state, incompressible
flow through a pipe section is estimated based on the Darcy-Weisbach equation as follows:
∆ 0.000216 / , (6)
where is friction loss factor as provided by a Moody diagram, is length of pipe (ft), is water
density (lb/ft3), is flow in pipe (gpm), and is inside diameter of pipe (in). Following Eq. (4),
(5), and (6), the pressure losses that occur between the inlet and the outlet of the FDCs at a
given flow rate are estimated and summarized in the last column of Table 3.
1505254.000 7849
39
January 8, 2016
7 Analysis and Discussion
The following section is a discussion of the data and observations collected during the flow tests
and serves to supplement the presentation of the data in Section 6.
7.1 Single FDC
A total of three single FDCs (FDC-1, FDC-2, and FDC-3) were tested and their pressure losses
as a function of flow rates are presented in Figure 25. The error bars represent a single standard
deviation for the data collected during the steady state flow condition. Also included in Figure
25 are solid lines representing a fitted trend line for the pressure losses as a function of flow rate
based on the following expression:
∆ / , (7)
where is the average pressure loss coefficient for the FDC, is the total discharge flow,
and is the inside diameter of the FDC discharge outlet.
6
FDC‐1‐1
5
FDC‐2‐1
Pressure Loss [psi]
4
FDC‐3‐1
3
CFDC = 0.0041
2
CFDC = 0.0032
1
CFDC = 0.0014
0
0 200 400 600 800
Flow Rate [gpm]
Figure 25 Single FDC pressure loss data
1505254.000 7849
40
January 8, 2016
Based on the test results, the maximum flow rate for the single FDCs during testing was
approximately 730 gpm, 2.8 times the prescriptive requirement of 250 gpm per inlet provided in
NFPA 14. In addition, it is possible that a higher flow rate could have been achieved during the
single FDC testing given the capacity of the water supply and the pumper. However, a limit for
flow of no greater than 750 gpm per inlet was selected due to a safety consideration based on a
high velocity flow (approximately 49 ft/s).
Based on the test results, FDC-2 produced the lowest pressure losses, while FDC-3 provided the
greatest pressure loss among the three single FDCs. While slight differences in the pressure
losses were observed among the three single FDCs, especially at a higher flow rates, the
variation was small (within ±2 psi). The rubber gaskets used in each manufacturer’s FDC are
slightly different in size and thickness, which could account for the variation observed at higher
flow rates.
For the range of the tested flow rates, the pressure losses associated with all tested single FDCs
were generally small. While the error bars suggest a greater variability of the data taken at a
higher flow rate, the maximum pressure loss is expected to be low even at values approximately
three times that of the prescriptive flow rate.
7.2 Siamese FDC
Two siamese FDCs (FDC-4 and FDC-5) were tested, each with only one inlet charged and with
both inlets simultaneously charged. The pressure losses are presented in Figure 26. The error
bars represent a single standard deviation for the data collected during the steady state flow
condition. Also included in Figure 26 are solid lines representing a fitted trend line for the
pressure losses as a function of flow rate based on Eq. (7).
The total flow rate data provided in Figure 26 is the total discharge flow rate measured within
the discharge pipe. Based on the test results, the maximum flow that was achieved during
testing was 777 gpm when only one inlet was charged with water and 1,492 gpm when both
inlets were charged. Similar to the single FDC flow testing, the flow tests for the siamese FDCs
were concluded at the selected maximum flows based on safety considerations.
1505254.000 7849
41
January 8, 2016
As observed in this test program, the greatest pressure loss associated with the siamese FDC
was approximately 25 psi when only one inlet was charged at 761 gpm and 29 psi when both
inlets were charged with a total flow of 1,445 gpm. In general, at a respective total discharge
flow rate, the pressure losses associated with the siamese FDC is optimized (i.e., minimized)
when both inlets are charged.
40
FDC‐4‐1
35
CFDC = 0.0154 FDC‐4‐2
30
FDC‐5‐1
Pressure Loss [psi]
CFDC = 0.0397
25
FDC‐5‐2
CFDC = 0.0341
20
CFDC = 0.0095
15
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Total Flow Rate [gpm]
Figure 26 Siamese FDC pressure loss data
Models of siamese FDCs with varying clapper designs were included in the testing. FDC-4 was
a freestanding type (integral 90° orientation) FDC with a single inlet clapper and FDC-5 was a
wall-mount type FDC with dual inlet clappers (see Figure 6 through Figure 9). When only one
inlet was charged (FDC-4-1 and FDC-5-1 tests), both FDC-4 and FDC-5 produced similar
pressure loss characteristics, with FDC-4 producing slightly higher pressure loss values at a
given flow rate. When both inlets were simultaneously charged (FDC-4-2 and FDC-5-2 tests),
FDC-4 hydraulically performed better, with lower pressure losses compared to FDC-5. Based
on these test results, the presence of an internal clapper can influence the pressure loss
characteristics of the FDC.51 The results also indicated that when only one inlet was charged,
there was no noticeable difference in the pressure losses experienced between FDCs with one or
51
The orientation of the freestanding siamese FDC (FDC-4) during testing may have had some impact on clapper
behavior, but such impact is expected to be minimal.
1505254.000 7849
42
January 8, 2016
two inlet clappers. The difference in pressure loss was noticeable in the two-clapper model
when both inlets were charged, as both clappers likely interfered with the flow, creating higher
pressure losses. None of the clappers in the FDCs tested utilized a spring-loaded closing
mechanism.
Further, the results also suggest that the difference in the geometry and shape of FDC-4 and
FDC-5 (i.e., freestanding versus projecting) is less influential to the pressure loss performance
than the presence of the clappers. The geometry of the freestanding model is expected to
inherently contain a greater flow restriction compared to that of the projecting model (i.e., a
convergence plus a sharp, 90° turn versus a convergence alone). However, the fact that the
freestanding model with one clapper (FDC-4) showed better hydraulic performance than the
projecting model with two clappers (FDC-5) indicates that the clappers have a greater impact to
the pressure losses than the geometry of the FDC.52
7.3 Triamese FDC
One triamese FDC (FDC-6) equipped with non-spring-loaded inlet clappers was tested and the
pressure loss data is presented in Figure 27 below, along with error bars for the standard
deviation and the trend lines following Eq. (7). Four separate tests were performed on the
triamese FDC, including two tests with only one inlet charged (FDC-6-1A and FDC-6-1B); one
test with two inlets charged (FDC-6-2) and one test with all three inlets charged (FDC-6-3).
52
This observation is specific to the FDCs tested and may not be universally applicable to all FDCs.
1505254.000 7849
43
January 8, 2016
40
FDC‐6‐1A
35
CFDC = 0.3496
FDC‐6‐1B
CFDC = 0.0815
30 FDC‐6‐2
FDC‐6‐3
Pressure Loss [psi]
25
20 CFDC = 0.0456
15
10
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Total Flow Rate [psi]
Figure 27 Triamese FDC pressure loss data
Based on the test results, the maximum flow rate that was achieved was 1,076 gpm when only
one inlet was charged (FDC-6-1B), with the corresponding pressure loss at approximately 40
psi. A maximum flow rate of 1,717 gpm was achieved when two inlets were charged (FDC-6-
2) with a corresponding pressure loss of 35 psi and a maximum flow rate of 1,818 gpm was
achieved when all three inlets were charged (FDC-6-3) with a corresponding pressure loss of 19
psi. For tests FDC-6-2 and FDC-6-3, the tests concluded with their maximum flow rate when
the water supply reached its maximum capacity, i.e. when the hydrant residual pressure reduced
below 20 psi.53 In general, at a respective total discharge flow rate, the pressure loss associated
with the triamese FDC reduced with more inlets connected, similar to the observations made for
the siamese FDCs.
7.4 FDCs Pressure Loss Characteristics
The pressure loss associated with water flow through FDCs can be expressed as a direct
function of a squared flow rate, , a characteristic length (i.e., pipe diameter) to the fifth
power, , and a pressure loss coefficient, , as previously shown in Eq. (7), which follows
53
NFPA, Fire Protection Handbook, 20th Edition, Section 15, Chapter 2, p. 15-24.
1505254.000 7849
44
January 8, 2016
the form of the Darcy-Weisbach equation. In general, the pressure loss coefficient is strongly
dependent on the geometry of the component considered and the greater the coefficient, the
greater the pressure loss.54 The FDC pressure loss coefficient, , based on the test results
from this test program are as provided in Table 4.
Table 4 FDC Pressure Loss Coefficients
FDC Pressure Loss Coef.

FDC ID Test ID Flow to Inlets
( )
FDC-1 FDC-1-1 1 0.00032
FDC-2 FDC-2-1 1 0.00014
FDC-3 FDC-3-1 1 0.00041
FDC-4-1 1 0.0396
FDC-4
FDC-4-2 2 0.0095
FDC-5-1 1 0.0341
FDC-5
FDC-5-2 2 0.0154
FDC-6-1 (A&B) 1 0.3496
FDC-6 FDC-6-2 2 0.0815
FDC-6-3 3 0.0456
Given that the pressure losses obtained from this test program track reasonably well with the
pressure loss expression in Eq. (7), using the FDC pressure loss coefficient, extrapolated data
based on the pressure loss coefficients for all tested FDCs are presented in Figure 28.
54
Munson et al, Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, 5th Edition, 2006, p.437
1505254.000 7849
45
January 8, 2016
FDC-6-1
250 gpm CFDC = 0.3496FDC-4-1 FDC-5-2
NFPA 14 500 gpm CFDC = 0.0397 CFDC = 0.0154
45
FDC-5-1
CFDC = 0.0341 FDC-6-2
40 CFDC = 0.0815
35 FDC-4-2
CFDC = 0.0095
30
Pressure Loss [psi]
25
FDC-6-3
CFDC = 0.0456
20
FDC-3-1
CFDC = 0.0041
15
FDC-1-1
CFDC = 0.0032
10
FDC-2-1
CFDC = 0.0014
5
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Total Flow Rate [gpm]
Figure 28 FDC pressure loss characteristics
The pressure losses across single FDCs are the lowest in comparison to that of siamese and
triamese FDCs. This observation is consistent with the geometry of the single FDCs that is
typically smooth, clapper-less, and contains very little resistance in comparison to that of the
siamese or the triamese FDCs, where inherent flow restrictions including turns, bends, and
clappers are incorporated as part of their designs.
Based on the pressure loss characteristics of the FDCs obtained in this study, when only one
inlet is charged with a flow rate of 500 gpm, two times that of the current NFPA 14
requirement, a resultant pressure loss of approximately 10 psi or less is expected. This level of
pressure loss is equivalent to a pipe pressure loss created by flowing 500 gpm of water through
an approximately 14-foot length of 2.5-inch schedule (SCH) 40 steel pipe.55 In addition, when
multiple inlets are charged with a flow rate of 500 gpm per inlet, substantial flow rates can be
achieved for siamese and triamese FDCs, while the pressure loss across the FDC is only
55
Based on the Darcy-Weisbach formula for friction loss
1505254.000 7849
46
January 8, 2016
expected to increase to approximately 15 psi, which is equivalent to flowing 500 gpm through a
21-foot length of 2.5-inch SCH 40 steel pipe.
For a flow rate of 800 gpm per inlet, approximately 3.2 times that of the current NFPA 14
requirement, the pressure loss associated with the FDC is expected to be up to 27 psi when one
inlet is charged and 37 psi when multiple inlets are simultaneously charged. This level of
pressure loss can have a potential impact to the hydraulic performance of the automatic fire
suppression and/or standpipe when relying on the FDC for the water supply.
7.5 Section Summary
Three single FDCs were tested at a maximum flow rate of approximately 730 gpm and resulted
in a corresponding pressure loss of less than 5 psi. Two siamese FDCs were tested at a
maximum flow rate of 777 gpm with one inlet charged and 1,492 gpm with both inlets charged
and resulted in a corresponding pressure loss of less than 30 psi for both configurations. One
triamese FDC was tested at a maximum flow rate of 1,076 gpm with one inlet charged, 1,717
gpm with two inlets charged, and 1,818 gpm with all three inlets charged and resulted in
corresponding pressure losses of 40 psi, 35 psi, and 19 psi, respectively. The tested siamese and
triamese FDCs were provided with clappers, but none were equipped with a spring-loaded
closing mechanism.
The pressure losses across single FDCs were the lowest in comparison to that of siamese and
triamese FDCs.
For a flow rate of 250 gpm per inlet, the pressure loss associated with the FDC was found to be
insignificant (i.e., less than 5 psi). At a flow rate of 500 gpm per inlet (two times current NFPA
14 requirement), the pressure loss was found to be up to approximately 10 psi when only one
inlet was charged and up to 15 psi when multiple inlets were each flowing 500 gpm (i.e. a total
of 1,000 gpm for the siamese and a total of 1500 gpm for the triamese). At a flow rate of 800
gpm per inlet (3.2 times the current NFPA 14 requirement), the pressure loss up to 27 psi when
one inlet was charged and up to 37 psi when multiple inlets were each flowing 800 gpm,
potentially impacting the hydraulic performance of the systems.
1505254.000 7849
47
January 8, 2016
8 Key Findings
Based on the literature review and the full-scale FDC flow testing conducted in this test
program, the key findings are presented as follows.
NFPA 14 currently requires that the full standpipe system demand be available from FDCs and
requires one (1) 2.5-inch diameter inlet for every 250 gpm of standpipe demand. The majority
of surveyed municipalities adopt NFPA 14 with no modification of the default NFPA 14 FDC
inlet flow requirements. Municipalities that deviate from the NFPA 14 requirements generally
use the number of exposures and length of the building exposure side to determine the number
of FDCs required. In addition, NFPA 14 requires manual standpipe systems be designed to
provide 100 psi at the topmost outlet, with hydraulic calculations terminating at the FDC,
however, pressure loss characteristic for the FDC itself are not provided in the standard, and
data from the manufacturers is currently unavailable. The lack of the scientific basis for the
required flow rate and the unavailability for the FDC pressure loss information are the main
driving forces of this study.
FDC full-scale flow testing indicates that a flow rate of approximately 730 gpm, nearly three
times that of the prescriptive requirement in the current edition of NFPA 14, can be achieved
through a single FDC with a 2.5-inch inlet with a pressure loss of less than 5 psi. For siamese
and triamese FDCs, flowing through one 2.5-inch inlet with a comparable flow rate yields a
pressure loss up to approximately 25 psi, five times that of the single FDC. When more than
one 2.5-inch inlet is charged with water simultaneously, a greater flow rate can be achieved with
a lower pressure loss through the FDCs. For siamese FDCs, the maximum flow rate achieved
was 1,492 gpm when both inlets were charged, which resulted in a pressure loss of less than 30
psi. For the triamese FDC, the maximum flow rate achieved was 1,818 gpm when all three
inlets were charged, which resulted in a pressure loss of 19 psi pressure loss.
1505254.000 7849
48
January 8, 2016
Based on the pressure loss characteristics of the FDCs obtained in this study, the following
conclusions are made:
 For a flow rate of 250 gpm per 2.5-inch diameter inlet (current NFPA 14 requirement),
the pressure loss associated with the FDC is insignificant (i.e., less than 5 psi).
 For a flow rate of 500 gpm per 2.5-inch diameter inlet (two times the NFPA 14
requirement), the FDC pressure loss is expected to be up to 10 psi when one inlet is
charged and up to 15 psi when multiple inlets are each flowing 500 gpm.
 For a flow rate of 800 gpm per 2.5-inch diameter inlet (3.2 times the NFPA 14
requirement), the FDC pressure loss is expected to be up to 27 psi when one inlet is
charged and up to 37 psi when multiple inlets are each flowing 800 gpm, potentially
creating an impact on system hydraulic performance.
 The current NFPA 14 prescriptive requirement of 250 gpm per 2.5-inch diameter inlet is
very conservative, and a flow rate of 500 gpm per 2.5-inch diameter inlet is expected to
have a minimal impact on the hydraulic performance of the system.
 If the current flow per FDC inlet is increased so as to allow for reduction in the required
number of FDC inlets for standpipe systems, consideration for the total number of FDC
inlets, each capable of supplying the hydraulic demand, should be given to structures
where redundancy in FDC locations and/or access may be critical. The allowable
number of inlets should also be subject to approval by the local authorities due to site
and access specific conditions.
1505254.000 7849
49
January 8, 2016
9 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the MFRI crews for their significant efforts in setting up,
instrumenting, and conducting the full-scale flow tests.
The authors further thank:
 Casey Grant, Research Director of the FPRF
 Kathleen Almand, Executive Director of the FPRF
 Amanda Kimball, Research Project Manager of the FPRF
 Peter Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc.
 Jim Widmer, Morris Group International, Potter Roemer
 College Park Volunteer Fire Department
 The Project Technical Panel
We would also like to thank a number of our colleagues at Exponent who provided assistance,
input, and advice.
1505254.000 7849
50
January 8, 2016
Appendix A
Table 5 Pressure Data

(b)
Total Pumper Pressure Data [psi] Average Pressure [psi]
Test ID FDC
Flow to Discharge Intake Set Pump Discharge Discharge Discharge
FDC (a) Pressure
Inlet(s) Flow Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure PD,t PU1,n PU2,n PU3,n
Type Loss [psi]
[gpm] Pp1 Pp2 Pp3
271 80 Idle 130 30 ‐ ‐ 3.4 2.0 ‐ ‐ 0.2
FDC‐1‐1
1 503 70 Idle 140 90 ‐ ‐ 12.2 7.6 ‐ ‐ 1.2
Single
693 60 147 150 140 ‐ ‐ 23.6 14.0 ‐ ‐ 1.3
281 75 Idle 130 50 ‐ ‐ 3.7 2.0 ‐ ‐ 0.0
FDC‐2‐1 478 70 Idle 120 80 ‐ ‐ 10.3 5.7 ‐ ‐ 0.6
1
Single 481 70 90 120 80 ‐ ‐ 11.0 6.1 ‐ ‐ 0.4
652 75 155 165 145 ‐ ‐ 24.7 15.6 ‐ ‐ 0.6
233 80 Idle 130 40 ‐ ‐ 3.5 2.3 ‐ ‐ 0.0
FDC‐3‐1 503 70 Idle 120 90 ‐ ‐ 11.4 6.6 ‐ ‐ 0.9
1
Single 664 60 130 135 125 ‐ ‐ 20.7 13.9 ‐ ‐ 3.3
732 75 165 180 155 ‐ ‐ 26.4 17.6 ‐ ‐ 3.5
448 75 Idle 125 60 ‐ ‐ 1.2 1.1 ‐ ‐ 5.5
FDC‐4‐1 642 60 110 120 105 ‐ ‐ 2.4 8.5 ‐ ‐ 14.6
1
Siamese 618 60 130 130 120 ‐ ‐ 2.7 5.8 ‐ ‐ 16.7
761 70 180 180 165 ‐ ‐ 3.2 12.0 ‐ ‐ 24.9
906 65 90 90 90 70 ‐ 5.8 8.5 8.3 ‐ 8.1
1073 60 120 120 110 95 ‐ 7.7 9.3 10.5 ‐ 9.2
FDC‐4‐2
2 1232 50 150 150 138 115 ‐ 10.1 12.5 14.2 ‐ 12.5
Siamese
1345 40 170 170 155 135 ‐ 11.9 17.5 16.3 ‐ 17.5
1492 20 200 200 178 160 ‐ 13.7 19.3 19.1 ‐ 20.3
552 65 Idle 120 85 ‐ ‐ 1.4 1.3 ‐ ‐ 8.3
FDC‐5‐1
1 700 75 140 145 134 ‐ ‐ 3.1 6.5 ‐ ‐ 17.1
Siamese
777 70 180 180 164 ‐ ‐ 4.1 8.2 ‐ ‐ 20.9
1505254.000 7849
51
January 8, 2016
(b)
Total Pumper Pressure Data [psi] Average Pressure [psi]
Test ID FDC
Flow to Discharge Intake Set Pump Discharge Discharge Discharge
FDC (a) Pressure
Inlet(s) Flow Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure Pressure PD,t PU1,n PU2,n PU3,n
Type Loss [psi]
[gpm] Pp1 Pp2 Pp3
865 66 90 80 85 65 ‐ 5.1 8.6 8.1* ‐ 8.4
FDC‐5‐2 982 68 120 120 110 95 ‐ 6.9 19.4 19.7* ‐ 18.8
2
Siamese 1298 50 170 170 154 135 ‐ 10.5 22.2 23.8* ‐ 22.8
1445 45 200 200 180 160 ‐ 12.8 27.8 24.4* ‐ 28.9
FDC‐6‐1A 554 N/A N/A N/A N/A ‐ ‐ 0.28 7.4 ‐ ‐ 15.8
1
Triamese 566 N/A N/A N/A N/A ‐ ‐ 0.35 11.4 ‐ ‐ 20.1
979 N/A N/A N/A N/A ‐ ‐ 0.9 10.6 ‐ ‐ 36.9
FDC‐6‐1B
1 1006 N/A N/A N/A N/A ‐ ‐ 0.9 10.4 ‐ ‐ 38.3
Triamese
1076 N/A N/A N/A N/A ‐ ‐ 1.8 5.9 ‐ ‐ 36.9
1012 70 90 90 85 80 ‐ 1.1 2.3 0.2* ‐ 8.4
FDC‐6‐2 1171 50 120 125 114 110 ‐ 1.2 6.0 2.0* ‐ 14.4
2
Triamese 1467 40 170 170 155 155 ‐ 1.8 10.4 10.4* ‐ 23.7
1717 30 200 195 180 177 ‐ 2.6 16.8 13.8* ‐ 35.0
1420 45 80 85 80 80 90 2.3 7.5 5.1 7.4* 11.5
1462 40 90 80 80 85 85 1.9 5.6 5.6 4.5* 10.4
FDC‐6‐3
3 1748 28 100 102 95 80 95 3.5 12.6 9.2 8.3* 18.6
Triamese
1755 20 120 120 109 80 110 3.5 10.7 9.2 9.1* 16.7
1818 10 127 125 118 100 118 3.7 12.4 9.6 8.1* 18.9
Note: (a) For certain tests, the flow was throttled to achieve a low flow condition (approximately < 90 gpm).
(b) A supplemental technique was used to determine certain upstream pressure due to cavitation created by hose orientations during testing (noted by “*”).
(c) “N/A” indicates that pumper data was not recorded.
(d) “Idle” denotes the idle engine (approximately 700 rpm) as indicated on the pressure set at the pumper control.
1505254.000 7849
52
January 8, 2016
Intake Pump
Set
Pp2 Pp1 Pp3
Figure 29 Pumper control and pressure gauges
1505254.000 7849
53

RF Fire Department Connection in Let Flow Assessment

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

RF Fire Department Connection in Let Flow Assessment

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Fire Department

Connection (FDC) Inlet

Y. Pock Utiskul, Ph.D., Neil P. Wu, P.E., and Elizabeth

© 2016 Fire Protection Research Foundation

1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7417, USA

About the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)

Report number: FPRF-2016-02

Dave Hague, Liberty Mutual

Jeff Hebenstreit, UL LLC

Steve Leyton, Protection Design & Consulting (AFSA representative)

Bob Morgan, Fort Worth Fire Department

Maurice Pilette, Mechanical Designs Ltd

Pete Schwab, Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers

Kyle Smith, Cobb County Fire and Emergency Services

Ronald Webb, S.A. Comunale Company, Inc. (NFSA representative)

Chad Duffy, NFPA Staff Liaison

National Fire Protection Association

Fire Department Connection

Fire Protection Research Foundation

Y. Pock Utiskul, Ph.D., P.E., CFEI

List of Figures iv

List of Tables vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations vii

Executive Summary ix

3 Testing Program Summary 14

4 FDC Descriptions 16

4.3 Triamese FDC 17

5 Test Setup 23

6 Test Results 35

7 Analysis and Discussion 40

8 Key Findings 48

Figure 1 Map of municipalities included in survey 6

Figure 25 Single FDC pressure loss data 40

Table 1 Test Matrix 15

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CFC California Fire Code

1.1 Project History

1.2 Research Objectives and Project Scope

4. Report of final results and summary of recommendation(s) to the NFPA 14 Technical

1.2.1 Review of Source Material for the Traditional Flow Requirement

1.2.2 Development of Full-Scale Flow Test Plan

Exponent, in conjunction with the Project Technical Panel, developed an comprehensive

1.2.3 Full-scale Flow Testing

1.2.4 Report and Summary of Best Practices

1. An overview of the project work to date;

2. A summary of the full-scale test data;

3. Comparison with current NFPA guidance; and

4. Identification of future potential research.

1.3 Project Assumptions

2.1 Current FDC Requirements

2.2 History of the NFPA 14 Requirement

2.3 Jurisdictional Adoptions and Procedures

Figure 1 Map of municipalities included in survey

2.3.1 Code Adoptions

2.3.1.1 Los Angeles, California

2.3.1.2 New York, New York

2.3.1.3 Chicago, Illinois

2.3.1.4 Atlanta, Georgia

2.3.1.5 Orlando, Florida

2.3.1.6 Kansas City, Missouri

2.3.1.7 Fort Worth, Texas

2.3.1.8 Seattle, Washington

2.3.1.9 District of Columbia