EP3772728B1 - Test method and test system for testing a system for monitoring the ability of a fire protection system to provide protection - Google Patents

Description

The present invention relates to a test method and a test system for testing a system for monitoring the readiness for protection of a fire protection system.

A fire protection system is understood here to mean any type of system that can be used for the purpose of (preventive) fire protection in buildings, halls, rooms or the like. Such fire protection systems can be, for example, but not exclusively, fire alarm systems, fire extinguishing systems, spark extinguishing systems, smoke extraction systems and / or a combination of these. Fire protection systems within the meaning of the invention are in particular systems which include a central device and one or more peripheral devices and / or components that are in communicative connection with the central device.

It is known that fire protection systems have to comply with the regulations described by appropriate specifications and / or guidelines. These specifications and / or guidelines require, among other things, regular controls to monitor readiness for protection of fire protection systems. These regular controls include, in particular, test runs of individual peripheral devices, such as sensors, pumps, alarm transmitters, and the like, carried out at regular intervals.

In accordance with these regulations, an operator is therefore obliged to carry out, for example, weekly, monthly, quarterly and / or annually controls specified by the guidelines by means of corresponding test runs. Carrying out these controls in accordance with the guidelines (and their corresponding documentation) is an operator obligation, without which the operational readiness of the fire protection system cannot be ensured.

In the prior art, these controls / test runs are mostly carried out and documented manually or manually. A big problem here is the time and money involved in each of these controls. This is particularly problematic if the fire protection system to be controlled is in a remote location. In such cases it can happen that the controls / test runs are not in accordance with the requirements and / or not in compliance with the guidelines due to the great effort involved, in particular not regularly at the time intervals specified by the requirements and / or guidelines and / or not at the time specified by the guidelines and / or guidelines to the specified scope, are carried out and the results of the controls / test runs are incorrectly transmitted.

To counteract this problem, efforts have been made in the past to automate these controls. However, there are some difficulties associated with such automation. So it is necessary during a test run, for example a pump or an alarm device, to switch the fire protection system to be monitored / tested from an operating state in which the fire protection system can carry out a fire protection action, such as a fire extinguishing action, to a test state in which the test run can be carried out can convict.

In this case, there is now a risk of a fire event occurring during the test run. In such a case, it must be ensured that the fire protection system can quickly return from the test state to the operating state in order to be able to fight the fire incident efficiently. If the test run is carried out manually, the trained person can abort the test run and thus put the fire protection system into operation. This is not possible in the case of an automated execution of the test run. So the automation of the test runs requires that here too In the event of a fire, the immediate transition from the test state to the operating state is guaranteed.

In this context, the DE 10 2018 119 776 a water extinguishing system that is set up to carry out an automated pump test run. For this purpose, the water extinguishing system includes a shut-off device in the test line used for the pump test run, which automatically closes the test line if the water extinguishing system is triggered and thus ensures that the extinguishing fluid is completely available for the fluid supply of the water extinguishing system. In other embodiments, the automated pump test run can also be set up differently, for example via a narrow bypass opening.

Furthermore, the US 6,351,212 B1 a system that is able to check the integrity and functionality of fire protection sensors and their power supply using variable and changeable parameters. For this purpose, a programmable master logic is used which is set up to compare data from each sensor with a large number of predetermined parameters. If the comparison shows that there is a deviation from one of the parameters; the system issues an alarm.

In the past, efforts of this kind to automate the monitoring of fire protection systems have failed because the requirements resulting from automation were not taken into account in the specifications and / or guidelines. However, since the functionality of the fire protection systems is of great safety relevance, without such definitions and requirements through specifications and / or guidelines, no automatically monitored fire protection system could be viewed as corresponding to the security requirements.

On the basis of this, it is desirable to provide a method which also takes account of these requirements arising from the automation of the test runs - for example an automatic return from the test to the operating state - in particular defines and checks corresponding parameters and includes them in the quality indication. Accordingly, these additional requirements must also be taken into account when testing a system for the automated monitoring of the readiness for protection of a fire protection system.

Furthermore, the automation of the monitoring of the readiness for protection of fire protection systems allows individual system components to be arranged at different locations. For example, the evaluation unit, which is used to evaluate the test results of the test run, can be arranged at a different location than the fire protection system, wherein the evaluation unit and the fire protection system can communicate with one another via a secure communication link. This enables a user, such as the operator of the fire protection system, to see the results of the test runs without having to visit the fire protection system itself, in particular its central device.

This is particularly advantageous in the case of fire protection systems that are arranged in locations that are difficult to access or that are difficult to access.

If, as described above, the individual system components of the system for automated monitoring of the readiness for protection of the fire protection system are distributed over several locations, this further complicates the testing of the system, since the testing of the individual components can require traveling to several locations. It is therefore an advantage if the test can also be carried out remotely.

In this case, however, it should also be noted that remote access, for example by means of a wired or wireless communication link, is associated with certain security risks. In particular, in such a case it may be possible to access the information that is transmitted via the communication connection during the transmission, to change it and / or to add and / or delete information. This can be problematic in particular for highly security-relevant information - as is the case here in the case of fire protection systems. When testing a system for automated monitoring of the readiness for protection of a fire protection system by means of remote access, measures must therefore also be taken to prevent such incidents.

Against this background, the object of the present invention is to provide a test method and a test system for testing a system for the automated monitoring of readiness for protection of a fire protection system which does not have the disadvantages mentioned above. In particular, it is an object of the present invention to provide a test method and a test system by means of which a prescribed, in particular guideline-compliant, control of a fire protection system can be ensured by a system for automated monitoring of the readiness for protection of the fire protection system. Specifically, it is an object of the invention to provide a test method and a test system with which, on the one hand, it can be prevented that the transmitted data can be changed, falsified, deleted and / or added, and with which, on the other hand, the system can be tested both locally Access on site as well as via remote access, preferably automated, can be carried out.

The invention is defined in the independent claims.

According to the invention, this object is achieved by a test method for testing a system for automated monitoring of readiness for protection of a fire protection system, which comprises the following steps: receiving at least one test parameter of the System, evaluating the at least one test parameter on the basis of at least one specification for the at least one test parameter, and determining, on the basis of the evaluation, a quality indicator that indicates the quality of the monitoring of the protection readiness of the fire protection system by the system.

According to the invention, a test method is thus provided which enables a system for the automated monitoring of the readiness for protection of a fire protection system to be tested. This is done by evaluating at least one test parameter on the basis of a specification, for example from a guideline, for precisely this test parameter. On the basis of the evaluation, a quality indicator can be determined, which indicates the quality of the monitoring of the readiness for protection of the fire protection system by the system.

A system for the automated monitoring of the readiness for protection of a fire protection system is to be understood here as any system that allows automated controls / test runs of the fire protection system, in particular of the peripheral devices such as sensors, pumps, alarms or the like to be carried out in order to determine to what extent a Willingness to protect is still given.

In this context, the readiness for protection of the fire protection system is to be understood in particular as the proper functionality of the fire protection system. The readiness to protect includes in particular the operational readiness of the fire protection system, i.e. the functionality of being able to switch from an operational readiness state to an operational state in which a fire-fighting action is initiated in the event of a fire. This means that in the event of operational readiness, it is ensured that all components of the fire protection system are in their functional condition. This includes in particular the termination of test runs, the blocking of test circuits, the opening of a fluid supply of an extinguishing system, the automatic starting of pumps for the fluid supply and the like.

Alternatively or additionally, the fire protection system's readiness to protect can also be understood to mean the effectiveness of the fire protection system. The term effectiveness is understood here to mean that it is ensured that the fire protection system can carry out the purpose assigned to it. For example, the effectiveness of the fire protection system means that, in the event of a fire, enough extinguishing fluid can be deployed to carry out the planned fire-fighting action, e.g. to control the fire and / or to contain and / or extinguish the fire.

In some cases it can happen that the operational readiness of the fire protection system is basically given, but the fire protection system is inadequately effective due to the deviation of certain operating parameters from a setpoint. These operating parameters can relate in particular to the pump pressure and / or the incrustation of lines. Both would result in an inadequate fluid supply to the fire protection system and thus inadequate extinguishing functionality. This is why this effectiveness can preferably also be tested as part of the willingness to protect.

Alternatively or additionally, the willingness to protect can also include aspects of organizational fire protection. Organizational fire protection includes, in particular, those aspects that relate to requirements that may not be changed beyond certain dimensions or framework values so that the functionality of the fire protection system can be ensured. These points relate in particular to the fire load still to be fought by the fire protection system, which is characterized in particular by aspects such as materials within the fire protection area, storage height of the materials within the fire protection area, adequate extinguishing fluid distribution, fire resistance duration and the like. Further factors can relate in particular to proper maintenance and / or regular maintenance of the fire protection system. Here it is checked whether the fire protection system meets all the requirements for the fire protection area to be monitored in order to be able to fight any fire incidents.

According to the invention, the test method comprises receiving at least one test parameter of the system for the automated monitoring of the readiness for protection. Receiving at least one test parameter is understood here to mean, in particular, receiving of this at least one test parameter by a receiver. In some embodiments, the recipient is a user who then manually transmits the at least one test parameter for evaluation. In some embodiments, the receiver is a receiving device that receives the test parameter and forwards it to a processor unit for evaluation without user interaction.

The term test parameters is to be understood here in particular as all parameters that allow a statement to be made as to whether the system monitors the readiness for protection, i.e. in particular the operational readiness, effectiveness and organizational fire protection, of the fire protection system. The term test parameters includes here both the parameters that describe certain properties of the system for automated monitoring, such as an indication that the system is set up to ensure the procedurally safe, i.e. operational, state of the fire protection system in the event of a power failure, and / or an indication that the system is set up is to transfer the fire protection system from a test state to an operating state in the event of a fire, for example during a test run.

The test parameters can also include parameters that describe the properties of the fire protection system, in particular parameters that are indicative of the effectiveness of the fire protection system. Thus, the test parameters can in particular include information about the amount of extinguishing fluid that can be applied by the fire protection system in the event of a fire for the purpose of containment and / or control and / or extinguishing of the fire event.

The test parameters can also include parameters that are indicative of organizational fire protection. In particular, the test parameters can include parameters which indicate whether certain conditions are within the range of predetermined frame values and / or dimensions. The test parameters can also include parameters that are indicative of compliance with the maintenance intervals and / or the quality and / or the completeness of their documentation.

The test parameters can also relate to design aspects that can also be specified by specifications, in particular guidelines, such as the stability, the components used in the system, the design of the individual components, such as labeling and / or shielding of lines, and the like.

The term test parameters also includes security-relevant parameters of the system, such as an indication that the communication connection or data transmission between the system for monitoring and / or the operator of the fire protection system and / or a tester who carries out the test method is secured, for example by a security key is, wherein the security key can in particular be set up to be changeable over time. In particular, this indication can indicate that the data transmission is preceded by an authentication and / or that the security of the communication connection prevents the data transmitted via it from being manipulated.

As an alternative or in addition, the test parameters can also include an indication that the communication link between the system and the fire protection system is being monitored in order to ensure that the unavailability of the communication link is identified immediately. This unavailability can in particular mean unavailability for a certain maximum time (for example> 20 s). In some embodiments, the indication indicates in particular the manner in which the communication link is monitored. In some embodiments, this manner can in particular include “pinging” the communication connection at regular (predetermined) intervals in order to determine whether the communication connection is still working properly.

As an alternative or in addition, the test parameters can also include parameters that are indicative of the measured variables to be monitored. This makes it possible to check whether the system for automated monitoring carries out the monitoring on the basis of the applicable measured variables, i.e. whether the monitoring is carried out in accordance with the specifications.

The test parameters can also relate to logging and / or documentation of the system for monitoring, which describe the state of the fire protection system and / or individual peripheral devices therein, and in particular the results of the individual test runs and the time intervals between the test runs. Further test parameters can also relate to a verification of the data, that is to say an indication that the data are checked in order to prevent the data from being changed.

The test method also includes evaluating the at least one test parameter. The evaluation of the test parameter takes place on the basis of a specification that can be taken from one or more guidelines, that is, a guideline specification. The guideline specification can be system-specific, i.e. specific for a certain fire protection system or a certain type of fire protection system, or it can be generally valid for all fire protection systems. The evaluation is preferably carried out by comparing the specifications, in particular for the test parameters, and the test parameters transmitted by the system.

On the basis of the evaluation, in particular the quality of the automatic monitoring of the readiness for protection of the fire protection system can be determined. The quality determined in this way can in particular be indicated by means of a corresponding quality indicator. The determination of the quality indicator is preferably based on a series of test parameters that are related to one another. The quality indicator allows Thus, on the basis of the different test parameters, to determine whether and, if so, to what extent the system for the automated monitoring of the readiness for protection is able to monitor the readiness for protection in accordance with the guidelines.

According to the invention, the at least one test parameter comprises a functional readiness indicator, the evaluation comprising determining, based on the functional readiness indicator, that the system is set up to switch the fire protection system from a test state to an operating state in the event of a fire.

It is essential to the invention that the test parameter includes at least one indication that the system is set up to change from a test state to an operating state in the event of a fire. In connection with the invention, this indication is also referred to as the operational readiness indication.

A test state is in particular a state in which the fire protection system is set in order to carry out a test run, that is to say a check of a specific functionality of the fire protection system. An example of such a test run is a pump test run in which the pump for the fluid supply to the fire protection system is tested. For example, the regulations described in VdS 2212, Section 1.3.4 stipulate that such a pump test run must be carried out weekly. For this purpose, a test line is first released by opening a corresponding opening element. This sample line is usually a water measuring device, comprising a flow meter, calming sections, and regulating slides for checking the water rate and is preferably provided as a branch from the distribution pipe behind the pump, which is used to supply a pipe network. After the test line has been released, a starter device is used to trigger the pump to start the pump. This start can be done automatically or manually. The starting pressure, which corresponds to the pressure at the time the pump starts up, is then measured and recorded and the test run is carried out until the normal operating parameters of the pump's drive motor are reached. The test line is then closed again by means of the opening element and no further extinguishing fluid can get into the test line.

If such a pump test run is to be carried out automatically, the system for automated monitoring needs a device that ensures that the pump test run - or any other test run - is aborted in the event of a fire and the fire protection system goes into operation. The operating state is the state in which the fire protection system is in operation, that is, it is used to initiate a fire protection action. The operational readiness indicator now indicates that the fire protection system has just such a facility.

In order to check this, the evaluation of the test parameter preferably includes an evaluation of the operational readiness indication. On the basis of this evaluation, it can be determined whether the system is set up in the event of a fire to put the fire protection system in a state in which it is ready for operation, i.e. ready to initiate the desired fire protection action. If the evaluation of the operational readiness indicator shows that the fire protection system is no longer able to guarantee a return from the test state to the operating state, it can be decided that the system no longer works according to the specifications, in particular the guidelines.

In a further development, the test method further comprises determining, based on the operational readiness indication, that the switch to the operating state takes place within a time span t which is less than a predefined threshold value after the case of fire has been registered.

The evaluation of the test parameter including the operational readiness indication preferably includes determining the period of time that the system - or the fire protection system monitored by it - needs after a fire event is registered in order to put the fire protection system into the operating state. In this case, an upper threshold value can be specified for the period of time, preferably on the basis of guideline specifications, which indicates how long the switching of the fire protection system into the operating state may last as a maximum. In some embodiments, this time span is in particular a time span t <60s, preferably t <45 s, even more preferably t <30s, even more preferably t <15 s The system is set up to initiate the transition from the test state to the operating state immediately, i.e. as quickly as possible.

If the specified period of time is exceeded, i.e. the system needs longer than the specified period of time to put the fire protection system into operation, it can also be decided in this case that the system no longer works according to the specifications, in particular the guidelines. This means, although the system is basically able to convert the fire protection system from the test state to the To move the operating state, this move does not take place quickly enough and is therefore insufficient to assume that the system is working in accordance with the specifications.

In some embodiments, the at least one test parameter further comprises a safety indication, wherein the evaluation comprises determining, on the basis of the safety indication, that the system is set up to switch the fire protection system from a test state to an operational readiness state in the event of a power failure.

In the context of the invention, an operational readiness state is understood to mean a state in which the fire protection system is operational, but no fire protection action is carried out. The operational readiness state is to be distinguished from the operational state insofar as the operational readiness state is a state that ensures that the fire protection system can switch to the operational state in the event of a fire.

As already mentioned in the introduction, it is necessary that a fire protection system is ready for operation even in the event of a power failure. This operational readiness must be ensured on the one hand when the fire protection system is in the operational readiness state outside of the test state, but also ensured on the other hand when the fire protection system is being tested by the system for automated monitoring at the time of the power failure, i.e. is in the test state. This aspect is also checked by the test method according to the invention.

For this purpose, the test parameter preferably includes a security indicator that indicates whether the system is set up for automated monitoring to switch the fire protection system from the test state to the operational readiness state, i.e. operational readiness, in the event of a loss of primary energy during an ongoing test run. The test parameter including the security indication is evaluated in order to determine whether the corresponding functionality of the system is (still) given. If it is determined during the evaluation that this is not the case, a decision can also be made here that the system no longer works according to the specifications, in particular the guidelines.

In some embodiments, the at least one test parameter comprises a termination indication, wherein the evaluation comprises determining, based on the termination indication, that the system is set up to switch the fire protection system from a test state to an operational readiness state in the event of a test failure.

It is possible that the test run does not go as planned. For example, it can happen that, during the test run that requires a test line, this test line is not opened because, for example, the opening element has not been activated. If a test run is carried out through a bypass that is very narrow, it can alternatively or additionally come about that it is blocked. In any case, such a malfunction during the test run would lead to the pressure and / or the flow of the fluid being too low to be able to carry out a (meaningful) test run. So that such a - faulty - test run is not carried out, the system should be set up to abort the test run in such a case and to transfer the fire protection system from the test state to the operational readiness state.

For this purpose, the system preferably includes a feedback function that provides positive or negative feedback regarding the test run. In the event of negative feedback, the system is then set up to abort the test run and return to the operational readiness state. Alternatively or additionally, the system should be set up so that if a faulty test run is detected in the event of a fire, it does not go into the operational readiness state, but rather into the operational state. In some embodiments, the transition from the test state to the operating state takes place via the operational readiness state. In some embodiments, in such a case, the fire protection system changes directly from the test state to the operating state.

The test procedure provides for this functionality to be tested as well. To do this, the system generates a termination indication and passes it on for checking. The method then detects a determination based on the termination indication as to whether this functionality is given in the system and is still functioning properly.

In some preferred embodiments, the at least one test parameter comprises an evaluation result of an evaluation of at least one measured value of at least one measured variable, which is indicative of the readiness for protection of the fire protection system. The evaluation of the at least one test parameter also includes determining all measured variables to be tested and comparing whether the at least one test parameter includes at least one evaluation result for each measured variable to be tested.

In some embodiments, the at least one test parameter can also be indicative of logging - or documentation - of the automated monitoring of the readiness for protection. In particular, the test parameter can indicate whether all through Specifications, in particular guidelines, as measured variables specified to be tested have actually been tested. For this purpose, the test parameter preferably includes an evaluation result of an evaluation - by the system for automated monitoring - of the measured variables to be tested.

In one embodiment, the evaluation of the at least one test parameter comprises an evaluation of the evaluation result as it was transmitted by the system for automated monitoring. The evaluation of the evaluation result includes, in particular, a determination of the measured variables for which a test run has been carried out and a corresponding evaluation has taken place. The test procedure checks the measured variables according to their technical data, i.e. checks whether the correct physical input variable was transmitted, whether the input range was the correct one, whether the physical output variable was correctly determined and its output range was the correct one, whether the mathematical relationships between input and and output variable, the tolerances used and / or the response times for the individual measured variables correspond to the specifications, and the like. This makes it possible to determine whether all the measured variables to be tested have actually been tested by the system for automated monitoring and whether the corresponding test runs were carried out within the framework of the specifications. It is therefore checked whether the system for automated monitoring has carried out the test runs in such a way that all values determined during the test runs guarantee a statement about the protection readiness of the fire protection system. In particular, it can be checked here whether the system for automated monitoring has carried out the test runs in accordance with all specifications, in particular all guidelines. If in this case it is determined that one or more of the measured variables to be tested were not tested or not correctly tested and / or evaluated, it can be assumed that no meaningful and / or specification-compliant test runs were carried out here.

Furthermore, by evaluating the evaluation result, it can be determined whether the fire protection system tested by the system for automated monitoring has all the functionalities that guarantee readiness for protection. These functionalities can in particular be defined by appropriate specifications, in particular guidelines. By evaluating the evaluation result, it is determined whether the fire protection system tested by the system for automated monitoring is still functioning in accordance with the specifications and / or whether a peripheral device and / or a component of the fire protection system has a functionality that deviates from the specifications. This can in particular security-relevant aspects, such as communication between the fire protection system and the automated monitoring system. If, for example, it is determined at this point that the communication between the fire protection system and the system is no longer securely maintained, it can be decided that the system is no longer working reliably.

In some embodiments, the test method further comprises providing a safeguard of the at least one test parameter against a change by a user.

In order to be able to ensure reliable operation of the fire protection system in the event of a fire, the system for automated monitoring must carry out all specified test runs reliably and in accordance with specifications. This implementation must be logged / documented in such a way that it is clear whether and when which test runs were carried out and how. It is of great importance here that the logging / documentation is not subsequently changed, i.e. that the evaluation results indicative of the test runs cannot be changed - for example manually by a user. This user can in particular be an unauthorized person who can access the evaluation results externally and thus falsify them.

This problem is exacerbated when the test procedure is carried out by remote access to the system and the evaluation result is transmitted via a communication link. On the one hand, such communication connections are sensitive to external unauthorized access; on the other hand, these connections can be affected by disturbances, which can lead to incomplete or incorrect transmission of the data.

It can therefore preferably be provided that the test method further includes securing the at least one test parameter against a subsequent adjustment / change, for example by a user or as a result of faults in the transmission and / or determination of the test parameter.

This backup can take place in particular in the form of a time stamp. For this purpose, the received test parameter is provided with a time stamp, which indicates when the test parameter was changed / generated. This means that when the test parameter is generated, a time stamp is generated that indicates when the test parameter was generated. If the test parameter is changed afterwards, the time stamp also changes and thus allows you to determine that a change has been made.

In some embodiments, the backup can alternatively or additionally also include encryption of the test parameter. The test parameter is then encrypted by the system and received in encrypted form. In this case, the evaluation of the test parameter initially includes a decryption of the test parameter. This ensures that the test parameter cannot be changed during the transmission. Furthermore, the use of encryption can also be used to uniquely identify the system to be tested when the test method is being carried out.

In some embodiments, the at least one test parameter includes an identification of at least one component of a system for the automated monitoring of the fire protection system. The evaluation in this case includes checking an approval of the at least one component of a system for automated monitoring of the fire protection system on the basis of the identification.

It may be necessary to ensure the use of certain, especially tested and suitable for use in fire protection, components in the system for automated monitoring. These components can in particular include certified components. In this case, the test method can also be used to check whether the specified components are actually being used and only then can the system be viewed as reliable and / or compliant with specifications.

For this purpose, the test parameter preferably includes an identification of the at least one component. This identification can in particular be carried out in the form of an identification number which uniquely identifies the component. In some embodiments, the identification may also include a type identification that identifies the component type rather than the component. In some embodiments, the identification can also include a check of the component, so it can be determined as part of the identification whether the component is functioning in accordance with all specifications.

The evaluation of the test parameter here includes checking an approval of the at least one component. This is preferably done by comparing the identification of the component with a list of tested and / or suitable for fire protection and therefore approved components and / or component types, in particular certified components and / or component types. This list is preferably generated before the start of the test procedure on the basis of corresponding specifications and is stored in a memory. During the evaluation, the list is then read out from the memory and the comparison is carried out. The specifications on the basis of which the list is generated can include general specifications that apply to all fire protection systems or can relate to system-specific specifications that have been defined for the corresponding fire protection system monitored by the system for automated monitoring - or the corresponding fire protection system type .

In some embodiments, the component can also be identified by means of a chip, in particular an RFID chip. In this case, a user can identify the components directly by reading out the (RFID) chip. Alternatively or additionally, the components can be set up to identify themselves by means of the (RFID) chip, that is, to transmit their identification, for example, by means of an RFID test system and / or the system for automated monitoring of the fire protection system. Such an identification by means of an RFID chip is, for example, from WO 2019/012154 A1 known.

In some preferred embodiments, the default is at least also identified by a guideline.

In order to ensure the most equal possible monitoring of the readiness for protection of all fire protection systems, the specifications for the system for automated monitoring can be specified in particular by appropriate guidelines that must be adhered to by all operators who use a system for automated monitoring. This ensures a high level of conformity. In particular, this enables a comparison of the readiness to protect different fire protection systems at different operators to be as neutral as possible.

In a preferred embodiment, the test method further comprises a test of at least one test history, the test history being indicative of the course of the test parameter over time.

In some embodiments, the checking method further comprises checking a checking history. A test history is understood here to mean, in particular, logging of the test parameters received from the system for automated monitoring as a function of time. The test history is preferably stored in a correspondingly provided memory of the test system.

The test history thus shows the course of the test parameter over time. This course over time makes it possible to understand whether the test parameters were received at their intervals, for example specified by the guidelines, and stored accordingly. In particular, the test history thus makes it possible to determine when a test parameter has not been received or stored in an improper manner.

It is preferred that the test method further includes determining a time interval for monitoring the readiness for protection of the fire protection system by the system on the basis of the quality indicator. In some embodiments, determining the time interval includes determining the time interval that corresponds to at least one specification and / or a guideline.

The automated monitoring of the readiness for protection by the system is preferably carried out at specified time intervals. These time intervals are usually specified by specifications and / or guidelines. The guidelines can state that certain components or peripheral devices must be checked weekly, monthly, quarterly or annually, etc. The system for automated monitoring is set up to carry out the corresponding test runs at least in these time intervals. In addition, the test runs can also be carried out by the system for automated monitoring more often than specified by the time intervals.

However, it can happen that the quality indicator indicates that the automated monitoring is deteriorating in quality. This can be caused on the one hand by malfunctions and / or loss of quality in the fire protection system that is being monitored, and on the other hand by malfunctions and / or loss of quality in the components of the system for automated monitoring. In both cases it can be indicated that the time intervals of the test runs are shortened, that the test runs are carried out more frequently than specified by the guidelines. In order to cause the system for automated monitoring in such a case to adjust the time intervals accordingly, the test method according to the invention further comprises an evaluation of the quality indicator and a corresponding determination of a new, adjusted time interval. This adapted time interval is also preferably displayed by appropriate specifications and / or guidelines.

This adjusted time interval is then transmitted to the system for automated monitoring, the system being set up to automatically monitor the Adapt readiness to protect, in particular the time intervals specified for the test runs.

In a further aspect, the invention relates to a computer program with program code means which cause a processor unit to carry out the test method described above.

In yet another aspect, the invention relates to a test system for testing a system for automated monitoring of a readiness for protection of a fire protection system, which comprises: a receiving device which is set up to receive at least one test parameter of the system via a communication link, and a processor unit which is set up to evaluate the at least one test parameter on the basis of at least one specification for the at least one test parameter, and on the basis of the evaluation to determine a quality indicator which indicates the quality of the monitoring of the fire protection system by the system. In some embodiments, the at least one test parameter comprises an operational readiness indicator which is indicative of a device in the system to switch the fire protection system from a test state to an operating state in the event of a fire. As an alternative or in addition, the at least one test parameter includes a safety indication which is indicative of a device in the system to switch the fire protection system from a test state to an operational readiness state in the event of a power failure.

The implementation of the test system according to the invention includes the communication connection as a secure connection, in particular an encrypted connection. In some embodiments, the communication link comprises a wireless communication link.

In a further aspect, the invention relates to a test system which can communicate with the system for automated monitoring via a secure communication connection. This secure communication connection can be wireless or wired. The secure communication connection is preferably a wireless connection via a radio network, preferably a private radio network of an operator. In some embodiments, the radio network can also be a cellular network.

The communication link is preferably secured using encryption. This includes both the system for automated monitoring and the Test system a cryptography device that allows the information to be transmitted to be encrypted and the information received to be decrypted. This can ensure that the check is not falsified by a user from the outside.

Furthermore, the communication link can also have error detection and / or error correction. The error detection and / or error correction allows to recognize possible disturbances in the transmission of the data, in particular the test parameters from the system for automated monitoring to the test system, and thus to initiate an error correction, for example by a request, the transmitted data is still to send once. As a result, the test method can be carried out with even greater reliability.

The test system according to the invention adopts the advantages and embodiments of the test method according to the invention, which is why reference is made to the above statements with regard to these advantages and embodiments.

Fig. 1

eine schematische Darstellung einer erfindungsgemäßen Systemarchitektur in einer ersten Ausführungsform, und

Fig. 2

eine schematisches Ablaufdiagram eines Prüfverfahrens zur Prüfung eines Systems zur automatisierten Überwachung einer Schutzbereitschaft einer Brandschutzanlage.

The invention is described in more detail below with reference to the accompanying figures on the basis of preferred exemplary embodiments. Here show:

Fig. 1

a schematic representation of a system architecture according to the invention in a first embodiment, and

Fig. 2

a schematic flow diagram of a test method for testing a system for the automated monitoring of a readiness for protection of a fire protection system.

Figure 1 shows a system architecture comprising a test system 1, a system 2 for the automated monitoring of a readiness for protection of a fire protection system 3 and a corresponding fire protection system 3.

The test system 1 comprises a processor unit 10 and a receiving device 11 and is also communicatively connected to a memory 12 and a display unit 13. In some embodiments, the memory 12 and the display unit 13 can also be embodied as parts of the test system 1.

The receiving device 11 is set up to communicate via a communication link 40 with a system 2 for the automated monitoring of a fire protection system 3, which is in the Fig. 1 is shown as a black box. In the embodiment of Fig. 1 the communication link 40 is an encrypted communication link. This means that the test parameters transmitted via the communication link 40 are encrypted by the system 2 and decrypted again by the test system 1. For this purpose, the test system 1 and the system 2 preferably each include a cryptography device (not shown), which in the embodiment of FIG Fig. 1 is designed as part of the receiving device 11.

The system 2 is also set up to communicate with a fire protection system 3. The fire protection system 3 comprises a first sensor 31, a second sensor 32 and a peripheral device 50, which in the specific embodiment of FIG Fig. 1 is designed as a pump. In the embodiment of Fig. 1 the fire protection system 3 is used for fire protection of a fire protection area comprising the high rack 60.

The system 2 is set up in particular to communicate with the first sensor 31 and the second sensor 32 of the fire protection system via corresponding communication connections. The first sensor 31 and the second sensor 32 are used to record measured variables when a test run is carried out on the fire protection system 3 and / or a peripheral device 50 contained therein. Corresponding sensors 31, 32 are therefore preferably arranged on each peripheral device that has to be tested regularly .

On the basis of the determination of the measured variables when the test runs are carried out, the system 2 can automatically monitor the readiness for protection of the fire protection system 3. However, in order to ensure that the system 2 functions in accordance with the specifications, this system 2 must be checked by the test system 1.

The test by the test system 1 is preferably carried out when the system 2 is set up and can thus represent a one-time, initial certification. In addition, the test can also be repeated at regular time intervals, for example to verify the certification after a specified time.

In the specific embodiment of the Fig. 1 the test system 1 carries out an initial certification. To this end, the receiving device 11 of the test system 1 receives at least one time-stamped test parameter from the system 2. In the specific embodiment of the Fig. 1 this test parameter comprises an operational readiness indicator which indicates that the system 2 is set up to switch the fire protection system 3 from a test state to an operating state in the event of a fire. Furthermore, the test parameter includes a security indication which indicates that the system 2 is set up, the To put fire protection system 3 in the event of a power failure from a test state to an operational readiness state. The test parameter according to the specific embodiment of Fig. 1 also includes a framework value indication that the organizational fire protection requirements set out for the fire protection system are met. This framework value indication indicates in particular that the storage heights of the materials within the fire protection area specified for the fire protection system are below the specified limit values and that the fire protection system 3 can ensure adequate extinguishing fluid distribution in the fire protection area. The test parameter is transmitted in encrypted form via the communication link 40. The receiving device 11 is then set up to decrypt the test parameter.

In the specific embodiment of the Fig. 1 the communication connection 40 is provided in particular by a correspondingly certified data transmission device. The certified data transmission device and the receiving device 11 also preferably include corresponding access restriction devices which, for example, require the input of a password and / or have a corresponding firewall.

The receiving device 11 then forwards the decrypted test parameter to the processor unit 10. The processor unit 10 is set up to evaluate the test parameter. For this purpose, the processor unit 10 first checks the time stamp of the test parameter in order to determine whether this has possibly been changed.

If no change is found, the processor unit 10 also determines on the basis of the operational readiness indication whether the system 2 is set up, the fire protection system 3 in the event of a fire event within a period of less than 30 seconds from a test state, in which a test run is carried out, to a Operating state that enables a fire protection action, such as an extinguishing action, to be carried out. Although the relocation in the example of Fig. 1 should take place in less than 30 seconds, but here it should be understood that other time periods are also possible, with the time periods being able to be determined as a function of a specification that is either generally valid or specified specifically for the fire protection system.

During the evaluation, the processor unit 10 also determines, on the basis of the security indication, whether the system 2 is set up, the fire protection system 3 in the event of a To put the loss of primary energy during a test run from a test state to an operational readiness state in which the fire protection system 3 is operational, that is, can be transferred to the operational state in the event of a fire.

Furthermore, during the evaluation, the processor unit 10 uses the framework value indication to determine that the storage heights of the materials within the fire protection area specified for the fire protection system 3 are below the specified limit values, and that the extinguishing fluid supply by the fire protection system 3 within the fire protection area meets the necessary requirements.

If the evaluation by the processor unit 10 shows that, in the event of a test run, the system 2 can guarantee both a switch to the operational state and the operational readiness state, depending on the corresponding event, and that the necessary framework conditions for organizational fire protection are complied with, generates the Processor unit a corresponding certification indication and outputs this to the display unit 13. The display unit 13 generates a graphic representation of the certification indication and outputs it to a user. The user is informed that the system 2 can be certified. The user can then issue the certification. In some embodiments, the certification can also be issued automatically over the communication link 40.

The certification carried out in this way can then either be permanent or limited to a specific, fixed period of time. During this period, regular checks are preferably carried out in order to compare the quality of the components used with the fire protection system 3 tested at the outset. This quality can be indicated by the quality indication. If the quality indication meets a specified minimum value, the certification can be extended after the specified period. However, if the quality indication indicates that the quality is no longer guaranteed, an extension of the certification can be refused. The quality indication can in particular be determined on the basis of the test parameters and - optionally - on the basis of external information (for example from the product market).

The computing device 10 is also set up to write the received test parameters into the memory 12. If the test system 1 is then used to carry out regular tests of the system 2, the individual test parameters received can be stored as test history in the memory 12 in order to show their chronological progression to be able to understand. This allows in particular to determine the time intervals between the tests and can also serve to verify that the tests were carried out regularly and correctly.

Although in the specific embodiment of FIG Fig. 1 the test of a pump 50 has been described as an exemplary embodiment of an automated test run, the test system can alternatively or additionally check specifications of other automated test runs. An alarm test should be mentioned as a further example. During an alarm test, the visual and acoustic alarms are checked automatically. Here, too, it must be ensured that the test run is aborted in the event of a fire and the fire protection system 3 goes into operating mode and / or that the test run is interrupted in the event of a power failure and the fire protection system 3 goes into the ready state. In the case of the transition to the operating state, it is advantageous if the visual and acoustic alarm is set up in such a way that it outputs an indication that the alarm that is now taking place is no longer part of the test run, but that an actual fire is present. The fulfillment of this requirement of an indication can, for example, also be checked by the test method.

the Figure 2 shows schematically a flow chart of a test method 1000 according to the invention, which is carried out by the test system 1.

In step S100, at least one test parameter is received by the receiving device 11 of the test system 1 from the system 2 for the automated monitoring of the readiness for protection of a fire protection system 3. The receiving device 11 then forwards the test parameter received in this way to the processor unit 10 for evaluating the test parameter.

In step S200, the processor unit 10 begins to evaluate the at least one test parameter. In the specific embodiment of the Fig. 2 the evaluation in step S200 initially comprises a determination, by the processor unit 10, an identification of a component of the system 2 and a comparison of the identification with a corresponding list of approved components.

In step S300, the processor unit 10 also determines, on the basis of an operational readiness indicator, which is included in the test parameter, whether the system 2 is set up to switch the fire protection system 3 from a test state to an operating state within a period of less than 30 seconds in the event of a fire incident and on the basis of the safety indication, whether the system 2 is set up to switch the fire protection system 3 from a test state to an operational readiness state in the event of a loss of primary energy during a test run.

In step 400, the processor unit 10 additionally determines on the basis of the framework value indication that the storage heights of the materials within the fire protection area specified for the fire protection system 3 are below the specified limit values, and that the extinguishing fluid supply by the fire protection system 3 within the fire protection area meets the necessary requirements .

In step S501, the processor unit 10 then identifies, on the basis of an evaluation result that is contained in the test parameter, the tested measured variables that are contained in the evaluation result. In step S502, the processor unit 10 compares the measured variables determined in this way with a specification of which measured variables must be tested by the system 2 in order to be able to assume that the functionality of the system 2 conforms to the specifications, and determines whether all the measured variables to be tested according to the specification are actually have been tested by the system 2.

In step S600 the processor unit 10 comes to the result that the components used in the system 2 and identified via the identification correspond to the specifications and generates a corresponding approval indication. In step S700 the processor unit 10 also comes to the result that the system 2 can guarantee both a switch to the operating state and the operational readiness state in the event of a test run and generates a corresponding certification indication.

In step S800, the evaluation of the processor unit 10 also shows that all the measured variables that are to be tested by the system 2 according to the specifications have been tested by the system 2, that is to say that the system 2 is set up to test and evaluate all the specified measured variables. The processor unit 10 then generates a corresponding completeness indication.

In step S900, the processor unit 10 then uses the results of the evaluation to generate a quality indication which is indicative of the quality of the monitoring of the readiness for protection by the system 2. If this quality indication indicates that the quality of the monitoring is high, the system 2 can work as set up.

If the displayed quality is below a predetermined quality threshold value, the test system 1 can output a message that is intended to induce a user to use the system 2 adapt to improve the quality of surveillance. In some embodiments, this notice can be, for example, a notice to shorten the time intervals between test runs.

In some embodiments, generating and outputting the quality indication in step S900 further includes an automatic reaction of the system to a quality value that is below a quality threshold value, which is indicated by the quality indication. That is, in some embodiments the system can be set up to automatically make appropriate changes in order to improve the quality of the monitoring.

These changes can be specified by the test system as part of the quality indication or can be determined by the system 2 itself. Further designs are conceivable. <u> Reference list: </u> Test system 1 Processor unit 10 Receiving device 11 Storage 12th Display unit 13th System for automated monitoring of readiness for protection 2 Fire protection system 3 First sensor 31 Second sensor 32 Communication link 40 Peripheral device 50 high level rack 60 Test procedure 1000 Receiving the test parameter S100 Identification of a component S200 Evaluation of the operational readiness indication and security indication S300 Evaluation of the framework value indication S400 Identify the metrics tested S501 Compare with the measured variables to be tested S502 Approval of the component S600 Verification of the operational readiness indication and security indication S700 Verification of the measured variables S800 Generating the quality indicator S900

Claims (14)

1. Test method (1000) for testing a system (2) for automated monitoring of a protection readiness of a fire protection system (3), wherein the system (2) uses a secured communication link (40) to communicate with a test system (1) for performing the test method (1000), comprising the following steps:

   receiving (S100) at least one test parameter of the system (2),

   evaluating, by a processor unit (10) of the test system (1), the at least one test parameter on the basis of at least one specification for the at least one test parameter, and

   determining (S700), by the processor unit (10), on the basis of the evaluating a quality indicator which indicates the quality of the monitoring of the fire protection system (3) by the system (2); wherein the at least one test parameter comprises a functional readiness indication, and

   wherein the evaluating comprises determining (S300), on the basis of the functional readiness indication, that the system (2) is configured to transfer the fire protection system (3) from a testing state to an operating state in the event of a fire.
2. Test method (1000) according to claim 1, further comprising
   determining, on the basis of the functional readiness indication, that the changing to the operating state takes place within a period of time t that is less than a predetermined threshold value after the fire has been registered.
3. Test method (1000) according to at least one of the preceding claims, wherein the at least one test parameter comprises a safety indication, and wherein the evaluation comprises, determining (S400), on the basis of the safety indication, that the system (2) is configured to change the fire protection system (3) from a testing state to an operational readiness state in case of a power failure.
4. Test method (1000) according to at least one of the preceding claims, wherein the at least one test parameter comprises a termination indication, and wherein the evaluation comprises determining, on the basis of the termination indication, that the system (2) is configured to change the fire protection system (3) from a testing state to an operational readiness state in the event of a test failure.
5. Test method (1000) according to at least one of the preceding claims, wherein the at least one test parameter comprises an evaluation result of an evaluation of at least one measured value of at least one measurement parameter which indicates the protection readiness of the fire protection system (3), wherein the evaluating of the at least one test parameter further comprises:

   determining (S501) all measurement parameter to be tested; and

   comparing (S502) whether the at least one test parameter comprises at least one evaluation result for each measurement parameter to be tested.
6. Test method (1000) according to at least one of the preceding claims, further comprising:
   providing a safeguarding of the at least one test parameter against modification by a user.
7. Test method (1000) according to at least one of the preceding claims, wherein the at least one test parameter comprises an identification of at least one component of a system (3) for automated monitoring of the fire protection system (2), wherein the evaluating further comprises:
   verifying (S200) an approval of the at least one component of a system (3) for automated monitoring of the fire protection system on the basis of the identification.
8. Test method (1000) according to at least one of the preceding claims, further comprising:
   testing of at least one test history, wherein the test history indicatives the progression of the test parameter over time.
9. Test method (1000) according to at least one of the preceding claims, further comprising:
   determining (S800) a time interval for the monitoring of the protection readiness of the fire protection system (2) by the system (1) on the basis of the quality indicator.
10. Computer program with program code means that cause a processor unit to carry out the method according to at least one of claims 1 to 9.
11. Test system (1) for testing a system (2) for automated monitoring of a protection readiness of a fire protection system (3), comprising:

    a receiving device (11) configured to receive at least one test parameter of the system (2) via a secured communication link(40) to the system (2), and

    a processor unit (10) configured

    to evaluate the at least one test parameter on the basis of at least one specification for the at least one test parameter, and

    to determine, on the basis of the evaluating, a quality indicator indicating the quality of the monitoring of the fire protection system (3) by the system (2), wherein the at least one test parameter comprises an functional readiness indication indicative of a configuration of the system (2) to change the fire protection system (3) from a testing state to an operating state in case of a fire.
12. Test system (1) according to claim 11, wherein the at least one test parameter comprises:
    a safety indication indicative of a configuration of the system (2) to change the fire protection system (3) from a testing state to an operational readiness state in case of a power failure.
13. Test system (1) according to at least one of claims 11 and 12, wherein the communication link (40) comprises an encrypted connection.
14. Test system (1) according to at least one of claims 11 to 13, wherein the communication link (40) comprises a wireless communication link.

Images