Tom, Frequencies for sprinklers are in 25 and frequencies for alarms are in 72. When 72 says do something X number of times per year and 25 says do them Y, then, even if it seems to be the same test, you do X for alarms and Y for sprinklers. I'll bet if you look close you can find that in each case, although the test seems to be the same, you'll be looking for differing results, at least in part. Now you don't have to do the tests separately but you do have to observe results for both when those differences apply and you combine tests. Here's a for instance. Test a flow switch: Sprinkler guy is making sure that the flow of water operates the switch (25), and the sparky wants to make sure a signal is sent to the panel (72). Sparky manually operates the switch, signal is sent and processed, and he makes sure it gets where it's supposed to in the time frames specified by his bible. Sprink guy flows water and makes sure paddle moves by listening for the click of the actual switch in the device, and/or a ringing bell. Simplified but each trade is concerned with different results that occur due to an operation within the same switch mechanism. Is the switch in and of itself important--other than as the initiator of a result, it's not. My light switch can work perfectly but my light bulb may be burned out and I get no light. What does my test tell me? That I didn't get the result I want--light if that was my intent. If the result I wanted was to see if the light switch was mechanically operable then my test was a success, it moved from position A to position B. If I was wondering if my light bulb was good then I'd need to do further testing and test for power to the socket through the switch or for continuity in the bulb. You never test things (although that's how we address it in language), you always test for results and you must define what results you're interested in finding out about or you're doing the standard main drain test--flow water once a year and record the results in a vacuum. Not much info to be gained for the effort.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Tom Duross <[email protected]> wrote: > What we've been doing on some is to have the owner have their alarm tech (we > try for just one but sometimes you have to take a crew, van, etc.) and he or > she sits by the panel with me and does the acknowledgements, clears, resets, > etc. Some don't mind me working the panel but most prefer me not to touch > it. > > I pretty much stand by the premise that only sprinkler contractors should be > touching these devices, especially flowing water. I could go on about the > horror stories with alarm techs blowing water without watching, leaving test > valves not fully closed, trying to test fire pumps, etc., mostly I prefer > them to just open and trip the pull stations, spray some canned smoke, drop > a detector, whatever.. > > One follow up question I have is, and I'm holding 25 as my bible for this, > what do we do when the frequencies differ? 25 says I should be testing > waterflow switches 4 times a year but 72 says something else. OR, am I to > tell the FA guys to follow 25 as it takes precedence over 72 when it some to > sprinkler related devices? There are also conflicts between 13 and 25 but > I've just decided myself to follow 25. As an aside, I remember when I got > my '98 edition and I took a few seminars on it, there were typo's galore and > some books said, for instance, main drain tests annually and some quarterly, > just within our seminar room! > > Tom > > > > Adding to what Pete said the areas of responsibility can be confusing but > not insurmountable. In New Jersey alarm contractors are permitted to > functionally test waterflow devices and control valve supervisory devices. I > say functionally because many incorrectly "simulate" operation by manually > moving vane switches, tampers or worse merely opening or shorting the device > contacts. The tricky part for alarm only companies are high/low air > pressures devices and fire pump supervision. > > Some alarm companies choose not to engage in this work because their > insurance coverage does not include suppression systems, others have stepped > up and expanded their business. "As an owner, I just want the system tested > per the standard." and the IFC and NFPA standards provide for this. > Interestingly in my area a number of full service and or joint ventures have > cropped up to provide these services seamlessly. > > Frankly I'd prefer that the IBC and NFPA stay out of the regulatory business > and concentrate on writing solid codes and standards without concern as to > who and how they will be enforced. Leave that to the market and AHJ's. > > Sincerely > > John Drucker > > NFPA 72 requires testing of the initiating device (tampers/flows) and > requires them to be tested per the methods established in NFPA 25. This is > identified in the method tables of NFPA 72. I.e. you can't just close the > contact to test a switch, you must flow water via the inspector's test > connection, or turn the hand wheel of the valve etc.... > > One can install a sprinkler system per NFPA 13 and use a water motor gong or > a 110 vac bell and NFPA 72 would not have any say in the testing of those > devices, but NFPA 25 would. When the switches used are tied to a fire alarm > system, then the fire alarm system requirement should rule. > > NFPA 25 seems to want to have jurisdiction over all the switches including > those that are IMHO fire alarm devices and are only installed because they > are connected to a fire alarm system. > > There have been discussions in the committee meetings such that certain > tradesmen are not permitted to work/test others systems. I.e. a fire alarm > contractor is not permitted to touch the sprinkler valves and visa > versa..... > > As an owner, I just want the system tested per the standard. As such, > unless I specifically spell out in a contract who is responsible for the > testing of these devices, the sprinkler contractors seem to think that they > own the testing of them when in fact I always make them the responsibility > of the fire alarm system contractor. If it is not spelled out in contract > language, then testing per NFPA 72 and NFPA 25 would get you two tests of > the same device (assuming separate contractors coming in to test the > systems). Many fire alarm companies will not test them unless you show them > in NFPA 72 that they are required to do so. > > The fire alarm system contractor is responsible for the alarm, reception of > the signals and the proper annunciation so it seems best that they get a > true supervisory signal as required by NFPA 72 when they are tested. I > don't see any such requirements spelled out in NFPA 25. > > There is some work on the NFPA 25 committee to clarify this testing > relationship, but some on the 25 committee would just as soon have the > devices tested twice, so figure this issue to be around for a while longer. > > Pete Larrimer > VA > > Post this on th fire alarm forum and are what they say? > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > > > I'm going to weigh in on Paul's side. The sprinkler contractor is > essentially seeing that the devices send a signal whereas the alarm > contractor is checking to see that that signal is processed properly > per his requirements. > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >From one person's perspective: Waterflow and supervisory devices are > 'parts' >> of the FA system inasmuch as they are initiating devices. They are also >> 'parts' of the sprinkler system. Each is referenced in their respective >> code. >> >> If a device fails, both contractors are going to be seated next to each >> other when the insurance company asks "Why". Was the device >> inspected/tested per NFPA-25? Was it inspected/tested per NFPA-72? That > is >> a two-part question that neither single-discipline contractor can answer >> completely. >> >> Based on the above, it's probably in the property owner's best interest to >> either: >> 1) Have a single contractor who is licensed and competent in both >> disciplines handle the inspection/testing process, or; >> 2) Have a single contractor of one discipline agree to perform the entire >> scope by sub-contract arrangement with a competent contractor of the other >> discipline (wording contract language carefully here so as not to violate >> applicable statute), or; >> 2) Allow each to contract and perform separately, resulting in redundant >> inspection/testing of certain common devices. The problem with this >> approach is the old 'quality salute': alarm tech says it's the sprinkler >> device, while the sprinkler tech says it's somewhere after the device >> (wiring, panel, etc.). >> >> Either way, failed sprinkler devices still need to be replaced by > sprinkler >> contractors. That opens up the debate over whether sprinkler techs can >> detach and reattach wires, etc. >> >> The sooner our industry gets a solid handle on this issue, the sooner we >> build credibility and cost-effectiveness in effective ITM for fire >> protection owners. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Paul Johnson > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
