Sprinkler Testing

[Simon M]

As we all know there is a drought coming in the south part of the country.  I have been asked the question should we still be testing the sprinklers every week and "wasting" the water.

My question is WHY does the BS require weekly testing, and what is the specific rational behind once a week and why it can't be extended.

In short I may need to build a case for extending the tests intervals with out compromising the systems and so I need to understand what the authors of the BS were trying to achieve.

Simon

[Graeme]

Same as Fire detection systems

Pointless having a system that does not work.If you only did a test every month you have more chance of a fault going unnoticed.
The more regular you test a system the more confident you can be it will work when you really need it.

If BS recommend a weekly test , then it's for a good reason,not just a number picked out of a hat to annoy people.
 
The sprinkler test i used a while ago hardly used any amount of water.

If your building goes up in flames due to a faulty sprinkler system then the Fire Brigade are going to use alot more water anyway trying to put the fire out.

[kurnal]

The purpose of the test is to ensure an alarm is given should the sprinkler system operate. As you know the alarm valve and feed to the gong ( and more importantly the feed to the pressure switch  interfacing to the alarm)
is only a 12.5mm pipe. We tested 11 systems last week that had been standing for several months without test and 4 of them were  reported to have had delayed alarms due to the build up of crud and scale in the pipework.

[AnthonyB]

Plus it's not just 'meeting the BS' - often its an insurance requirement (hence the insurance company cards to record it on) & failure to comply without specific written consent could invalidate insurance.

Fire Protection water use, even in test isn't what I'd call waste - jetwashing cars, watering gardens and those thousands of unrepaired leaks are far more wasteful and should be targeted first.

If water supplies reach serious drought levels you want your sprinkler system to work quickly as if they don't you might be looking at total loss (& worse if its a system for life safety) as the brigade may not have the water pressure or supplies to fight a fire

[Simon M]

Thanks for the Info but apart from Kurnal there was no real reasons.

I accept all the reason for testing such as it only a small amount of water, if there is a drought we need it to work quickly and the insurance guy say so but all I ask is, why?

I'm sure the authors of the BS are expert and there are many that I respect but I would just like to understand why the time periods have been recommended.  If there is any way that we can reduce our water consumption and still ensure that we have a fully functioning system I need to look at it.

You never know I may even want them tested every day if I don’t agree with the reasoning.

Simon

[Chris Houston]

As we all know there is a drought coming in the south part of the country.  I have been asked the question should we still be testing the sprinklers every week and "wasting" the water.

My question is WHY does the BS require weekly testing, and what is the specific rational behind once a week and why it can't be extended.

In short I may need to build a case for extending the tests intervals with out compromising the systems and so I need to understand what the authors of the BS were trying to achieve.

Simon

It is possible that your insurance contract has a warranty requiring the weekly testing and that you could breach your contract by not doing so.  

If the building were to go on fire much more water would be used putting it out, I think the amount of water used in a weekly test is quite insignificant.

[Thebeardedyorkshireman]

I think the weekly testing is a 'carry over' from custom and practice in the sixties and seventys before the British Standards were written.
There was a very old specification for a sprinkler alarm panel which was F.O.C. approved and this was connected via a GPO line to the Home office F&F panel at the local station. This had nothing to do with Fire alarms, which at that time were covered by CP1019. This panel contained a blown glass mercury time delay tube which was extreemly delicate and a bit tempremental. and required very regular testing to ensure that the swinging cradle had not stuck or the characteristics of the tube had changed.
When we installed these panels we allways gave the customer a time window on a particular day to do the test down to the Brigade. If the test didnt go through the Brigade would ring the customer and give him a good ........ Hence the weekly test became cast in stone.  When we removed the H.O. panels and started signalling through to central stations, we would ring up and arrange for the same test time if possible and write that on the instructions next to the valve set.
With the advent of 3116 pt 4 and eventually 5839 weekly testing was the norm and hence became incorporated.
There may have been a mechanical spec from F.O.C. was it the 28th? which required regular testing of the sprinkler water bell refered to above  but we only did the electrics!!
The pressure switch was on the same pipe as this bell and hence opening the wheel valve tested both.
I hope that is of some use
Regards
Dave

[Simon M]

Thanks Dave

This is moving me in the right direction.

Just to put the record stright, I'm not trying to stop testing or say the BS is wrong but surely we all need to understand WHY.  

Sorry to be so blunt here but all bar tow of the answers have said becasue the BS or insurance say so.  If it said when you test it you must stand on one leg waving an Aresnal flag would you do it, NO unless it brought something to the testing.

Sorry about that rant and I do thank you all for the interest but all I'm after is to understand WHY it is done the way it is.

Simon

[John Webb]

As someone who sat for several years on the 'Top Level' BSI committee overlooking all the standards on fixed fire-fighting equipment, I'd like to point out that the current BS for sprinklers is based on the previous FOC Sprinkler Rules stretching back many years. I do not have access to the information on when the first set of the Rules was published, nor if it required a weekly test.

But as the FOC was testing equipment from 1889 onwards I believe the weekly functional test was almost certainly the result of many years of bitter experience by the insurers of non-functioning sprinkler systems causing them significant losses. Hence their insistance on regular weekly tests and a record of reliability in the last five decades of sprinkler systems approaching 100%.

More to the point about droughts, what happens if the local water company drops the mains pressure significantly to reduce losses through those unrepaired leaks and a sprinkler system no longer has the design static or running pressure available from the mains, even one supplied from two separate mains?

John Webb

[Simon M]

Thanks you John, I may give the BRE a call and see what they think.  John what is FOC?  Interesting point on water pressure, this could be a whole topic on it's own.

Also apologies to anyone I may have offended I had a bad day the other day.

Thanks

Simon

[John Webb]

Dear Simon,
The "Fire Offices' Committee" - FOC - was a mutual group set up by the fire insurers back in 1886. Since my previous post I have found that they published the first edition of their rules in 1889!

As you may be aware, the Loss Prevention Council took over from the FOC in 1985. The BS on sprinklers + the LPC TBs (Technical Bulletins) now comprise the modern equivilent of the FOC Rules.
In turn BRE, following its own privatisation in 1997 (which is when I left them) then took over LPC and moved them from Borehamwood to the BRE site at Garston.
To contact LPCB (Loss Prevention Certification Board) try 01923 664100 or Fax 01923 664994 or e-mail enquiries@brecertification.co.uk
Hope this is of help.

[Simon M]

Thanks John.