this example was a 13R, not a 13D system. regardless, several jurisdictions have explained their reasons for requiring this test, and my belief is that contractors are catching many more problems than are being revealed to the inspectors at bucket-test time.
I think it is a great idea. essentially, it is an inspectors test, modified. remember, 13R is intended as life safety system. What is wrong with performing a real-world test just to make sure enough water comes out so that it does its job? Trade-offs are allowed (travel distances, FRR, other detection schemes....etc) when sprinklers are credited. It looks bad for our industry when we have property loss in sprinklered facilities. It is almost unforgiveable to lose loved ones whens they implicitly depended upon a 13R system to protect. This is not a dying baby speech, but it seems an act of negligence to walk away from a life safety system without checking that it works, practically. Partial blockages don´t always show up as drop in static pressure. scot deal excelsior fire engineering ******************* This whole bucket thing sounds asinine to me... I mean, obviously Brian has a problem here with the water supply but the bucket test in general doesn't sound real practical. Anyone could've looked at the guage and realized their was a problem without a bunch of people sitting around holding buckets under open heads. Hydraulic calculations are theoretical in nature... This especially doesn't make much sense if ahj's are requiring this for 13d systems which can be calculated based upon a static pressure only.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
