Fire Sprinkler System and Domestic Water Supply Coordination
A new commercial building is being constructed with a combined domestic water and fire sprinkler system. The domestic water supply enters the building through a 2-inch service line at 60 psi static pressure. The fire sprinkler system requires a minimum of 20 psi residual pressure at the top of the riser during a fire flow of 500 gpm. The domestic demand is 100 gpm at 30 psi. The plumbing code requires that the domestic water system be protected from backflow from the fire sprinkler system. The contractor proposes to connect the fire sprinkler system directly to the domestic service line without a backflow preventer, arguing that the fire sprinkler system is a closed system and there is no risk of contamination. The inspector must determine if a backflow preventer is required, and if so, what type, and how it affects the available pressure. The code (e.g., IPC 608.15.4) requires backflow protection for fire sprinkler systems.
1. Is a backflow preventer required for the fire sprinkler system connection? If so, what type is acceptable, and how does it affect the pressure available to the sprinkler system?
Read the worked answer
Yes, a backflow preventer is required. The plumbing code (IPC 608.15.4) requires that fire sprinkler systems connected to the domestic water supply be protected by a backflow preventer to prevent contamination of the potable water system from stagnant water, chemicals, or biological growth in the sprinkler piping. The type of backflow preventer depends on the degree of hazard. A reduced pressure principle backflow preventer (RPZ) is typically required for a fire sprinkler system because it provides protection against both backpressure and backsiphonage, and it is allowed for high-hazard applications. A double check valve assembly may be acceptable in some jurisdictions if the hazard is low, but the RPZ is the most common. The RPZ valve creates a pressure loss of about 10-15 psi at 500 gpm. The available pressure at the service is 60 psi static. The domestic demand requires 30 psi at 100 gpm, so the pressure drop in the service line due to domestic flow must be considered. The fire flow demand of 500 gpm will cause a larger pressure drop. The inspector should require a hydraulic calculation to ensure that after installing the RPZ, the residual pressure at the top of the riser is still at least 20 psi at 500 gpm. If not, a fire pump or a larger service line may be needed. The contractor's argument that the system is closed is incorrect because the sprinkler system can be subject to backflow due to pressure fluctuations or stagnation.
2. If a double check valve assembly were used instead of an RPZ, would that be acceptable? What are the code implications?
Read the worked answer
A double check valve assembly may be acceptable only if the local authority having jurisdiction determines that the fire sprinkler system poses a low hazard and that the domestic water system is protected by other means. However, most codes require an RPZ for fire sprinkler systems because the stagnant water in the sprinkler piping can become contaminated with rust, bacteria, or chemicals, and a double check valve does not protect against backsiphonage. The IPC allows a double check valve assembly for fire sprinkler systems only when the system is not connected to any chemical additives and is considered low hazard. But many jurisdictions require an RPZ regardless. The inspector should verify the local code amendments. If a double check is allowed, it has a lower pressure loss (about 5-10 psi at 500 gpm), which might help with the pressure. However, the inspector must ensure that the device is listed for fire protection service and is installed with proper test cocks and shutoff valves. The decision should be based on the hazard assessment and the local code.