|
Post by Keith Rhodes on Oct 31, 2014 12:50:07 GMT
One member had pressure switch failure (potter device) so although pump churned it failed during a fire situation as the pressure switch failed to open and when system pressure dropped the pump failed to kick in.
RSA intends to issue better guidance on auto testing proving pressure switching functions to cut in/ cut out pump controls function correctly and will alarm in the event of failure.
|
|
|
Post by Keith Rhodes on Oct 31, 2014 13:38:37 GMT
The following is our own view, not that of the RSA group meeting;
5.9.3 b) refers only to an "activation" where manual intervention shall be required to turn off the pump/s. 5.9.3.a) refers to auto testing where it is preferred for the installation to auto test including testing of all pump cut in/cut out devices
To include testing of the pressure device/s during an auto test by dropping out or recycling around 15LPM through a devise such as a solenoid valve controlled circuit could also test the flow switch functionality, with electronic alarm override when in test mode.
Then the auto test not only cycles the pump but it tests the whole alarm function, confirms flow switch operation, and confirms power and water input to the whole system is present.
We already have a product that does all of this,and more, and has been in production since 2010. others may have similar systems. so it can be done.
Cycling the pump alone does not confirm the water supply has not been isolated, does not prove the pressure switch controls would work, and does not prove the alarm function would work.
Our view is that item 5.9.3 has not gone far enough and is too vague.
|
|
mark
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by mark on Nov 3, 2014 18:20:53 GMT
Keith
My view would be that for the purpose of exercising the Pump any test cycle should mimic as close as possible a true Sprinkler activation. Clearly within reason and your quantity of water seems fair.
Personally I would not be concerned if this did not activate the alarm flow switch as although this form part of the "System" my understanding for the insertion of this clause is to avoid seized pumps through in-activity.
The Flow switch and alarm side would therefore still be tested on an annual basis but with the condition and ability of the pump given priority via its monthly cycle.
KR
|
|