One question, one point. Did they use direct bury wire or use a conduit to run cable to DDCVA's originally? If owner required by-point supervision why not pull a multi-conductor cable?
Intelligent alarm. Unless the you can pull multiple cables, i.e. one pair per switch, you can't monitor each switch individually. The FACP is monitoring each addressable point. Most common addressable points are addressable smoke detectors. These are manufactured with the digital parts needed to be addressable. Tamper switches, high/low air, paddle water flow, and pressure switches for alarm, as well as similar switches are dry contact, non-addressable switches . Alarm device manufacturers' sell a monitoring for monitoring such switches. One side is connected to, powered and monitored through one set of terminals on the fire alarm panel. It has a distinct code that the fire alarm control panel uses to identify status and signals from that unit. Depending on the design and listing the FACP may be monitoring many dozen individual points on a single circuit. On the other side of the monitoring module connects to the device(s) (switches), with an end-of-line resistor at the end of that circuit. Once you go farther out on the system you do not get more information reported back to the FACP. I.E., if an monitoring module was used in this case, all the switches (valves) status would report back to panel as a single point. While in theory if the system was addressable someone might make the components to do what has been mentioned, it is my belief that all the monitoring modules now manufactured are intended to be installed in a clean, dry, location. If you wanted to monitor each switch as an alarm point you'd need to have monitoring modules inside the building, and a pair of cables (wire) pulled to each switch, with its EOL resistor. In fact, most monitoring module units you will see have two separate modules in one case. You've all seen this when you think about it: A small box that's part of the alarm system, with wires to your waterflow switch and another pair to sprinkler shutoff valve. So it might be in one 4x4 box, but it really is two completely separate alarm points as far as the FACP is concerned. What makes them different is the alarm tech programs one (say Point 45) as Waterflow, System 1, which is further programmed as Alarm. The other point (say Point 46) is programmed as Valve Tamper, System 1, which is further programmed as Supervisory. If the same dual monitoring module is monitoring a valve cluster a point might be monitored as Waterflow, System 1, 2, or 3. And the with similar output for the tamper switches. You would know which valve cluster, but not which individual system. (I left out discussing features used for powered devices such as smoke detectors that might be monitored by an monitoring module.) Best Bruce Verhei > YOn Jul 5, 2017, at 13:29, Parsley Consulting <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Owen, > > if the fire alarm and/or sprinkler monitoring system is addressable the PIV > on the backflow valves could be designated with an address unique from that > on the PIV, all three of which would send an identifiable signal back to the > panel. The signal does not have to be unique to one valve. > > What -72 is telling you quite clearly in the explanatory text from the > handbook is that all - repeat ALL - of the tamper switches could be on the > same circuit, provided there were no more than 20 such devices on that > circuit, as the activation of any one of those switches must produce a > supervisory signal at the panel. This would include: > Activation of a common supervisory signal indicator > Activation of an audible supervisory signal > Display/print out a change of status > Transmit a supervisory signal to the supervising station > Actuate a graphics system - display/floor map. > The above are suggestions from a typical input/output matrix as described in > NFPA 72, A14.6.2.4. > > I hope that clears it up. > > Ken Wagoner, SET > Parsley Consulting > 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 > Escondido, California 92025 > Phone 760-745-6181 > Visit our website >> On 07/05/2017 12:21 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> Ok, so the tamper switch on the PIV sends a unique signal, different from >> the tamper on the DCV that it is connected to in series? It should >> indicate the PIV tamper is moving at the panel? I just assumed a unique wire >> ran back to the panel for each tamper. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 5, 2017, at 12:08 PM, Charles Thurston <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello >>> >>> Ken nailed it right on the head. I do try not to tie devices all over the >>> building to the same circuit, BUT could. Like I said what it shows on the >>> panel can be programmed by the alarm system programmer. If the Local AHJ >>> does not like what it shows it is a very simple matter to change. >>> >>> Wednesday, July 5, 2017, 11:54:48 AM, you wrote: >>> >>> >>> Owen, >>> >>> First, per NFPA 72 a tamper switch is defined as a supervisory >>> signal-initiating device in chapter 17.16 [2013]. It functions when a >>> switch is closed, completing a circuit. In this respect it is no different >>> than a smoke detector as the alarm signal, in this case supervisory, is >>> only created when the valve is moved two or fewer revolutions of the hand >>> wheel of the valve or upon motion of the control apparatus of the valve of >>> more than 1/5th of its travel distance. >>> >>> As for how many of these devices can be supplied by one pair of wires that >>> answer is only limited by NFPA 72, which limits the number of such devices >>> on a circuit. Section 23.8.5.6.2 [2013] advises that: >>> >>> The number of supervisory signal–initiating devices permitted to be >>> connected to a single initiating device circuit shall not exceed 20.There >>> may be limitations established by the device manufacturer, or the panel, or >>> the addressable modules and the listing of those devices should be reviewed >>> prior to raising an alarm [no pun intended]. >>> >>> Further, the explanatory text in the handbook gives the following >>> information [all emphasis is mine]: >>> >>> The Code permits up to 20 supervisory signal–initiating devices on a single >>> initiating device circuit because doing so does not degrade the reliability >>> or operability of the fire alarm system. Site specific needs and conditions >>> might dictate that a circuit serves fewer devices. For example, if a >>> facility has 20 sprinkler control valves each equipped with a supervisory >>> switch, all the valve supervisory switches could be connected to the same >>> initiating device circuit and still comply with the Code. However, if a >>> supervisory signal were received, it would require that someone check every >>> valve to find the one initiating the signal. Supervisory signal–initiating >>> devices include valve supervisory switches, air pressure switches, building >>> temperature switches, fire protection water tank level and temperature >>> switches, and other devices that are designed to ensure that fire protection >>> and life safety features are in service at the time of a fire. Refer to the >>> defined terms supervisory signal-initiating device and supervisory signal in >>> 3.3.132.5 and 3.3.257.9.So, there doesn't appear to be any reason that such >>> an arrangement as you've described would not be in compliance with the >>> applicable code. You might also ask for testing to prove that the tampers >>> on all of the valves generate the required signal at the panel. >>> >>> sincerely, >>> Ken Wagoner, SET >>> Parsley Consulting >>> 350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >>> Escondido, California 92025 >>> Phone 760-745-6181 >>> Visit our website >>> On 07/04/2017 9:38 AM, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> Here is the situation on an installation at a new hotel. The DCVA has >>> tamper switches. Two PIV's near by do not have tamper switches. The hotel >>> is complete, no wiring had been run to the PIV's. (CFC 903.4) The DCVA and >>> PIV's sit within the same large planter with lots of finished concrete >>> between the valves and the alarm panel, about 150'. So the alarm guys >>> tapped into the wiring of the DCVA tampers and ran it to the PIV's to >>> install tampers. Is that legal? If a PIV is >>> closed will it show at the panel or monitoring company as a DCVA tamper? >>> I'm not knowledgeable on the wiring of devices. >>> Owen Evans >>> 13D Design >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Charles Thurston [email protected] >>> MYRTLE BEACH FIRE SAFETY GROUP >>> A Division of Pye-Barker Fire Safety >>> 1445 Cannon Road >>> Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 >>> (843) 916 - 8787 >>> (843) 839 - 3473 facsimile >>> >>> <int_1.jpg> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
