FireNet Community

FIRE SAFETY => Fire Alarm Systems => Topic started by: Tom W on December 08, 2010, 02:52:12 PM

Title: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Tom W on December 08, 2010, 02:52:12 PM
Q. But what if the sounders fail?

A. ?

The answer in my head is that they don't but I need to get more technical than that. If the theoretical question was put to you how would you answer it?

Im genuinely interested as to how you go about answering something like that! Sounder companies just seem to be saying "they don't fail" thats not enough for me! I need the rest of that statement!

Why?!
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Meerkat on December 08, 2010, 03:01:36 PM
What?  All of them?  Is that even possible in a modernish_ system without some huge failre that takes out haklf the building?
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Big_Fella on December 08, 2010, 03:07:09 PM
Nice question!

Assuming they mean 'the internal components' failing on all sounders on the fire alarm system within the building.  I would possibly approach it with the 'probability' of that happening.  If all circuits/cabling were to fail, the monitoring of the circuits would be shown as a fault at the control panel.  If the circuitry within the sounders failed, this may not get picked up until the sounders were activated during the weekly test.

So, whats the probability of all sounders developing this fault within one week? Virtually nil.

More chance of a plane parking in the MD's space I think  ;D
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: wee brian on December 08, 2010, 03:17:10 PM
If they fail at the same time as there is a fire, then there is an increased risk that somebody might die.

But you are probably more likely to be struck by lightning so lighten up a bit.
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: kurnal on December 08, 2010, 03:24:33 PM
A lightning strike might just do it- multi seated fires, total meltdown of all building electrical systems.......
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: SeaBass on December 08, 2010, 03:49:32 PM
I agree that the chances of a catastrophic failure on a conventional sounder system are very low, but they are considerably better on a voice alarm system operating with a central amplifier, even when the amps and power supplies are duplicated. The faults usually revolve around software problems, but not always.

I've actually written system failure procedures in the past to ensure that buildings can remain occupied when such faults occur.     
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Tom W on December 08, 2010, 03:59:40 PM
Cheers gang

So do your answers stand firm if we were to talk about a single sounder failure? 
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Graeme on December 08, 2010, 04:40:02 PM
no-as sounders can and do fail individually.
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Tom W on December 08, 2010, 04:42:53 PM
Thanks Graeme

Do you know of any case studies of them failing or why they fail individually?
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Wiz on December 08, 2010, 06:07:20 PM
Anything can fail at any time for any number of reasons.

Electronic sounders are most likely to fail in normal operation due to a failure of a component part.

All manufacturers would normally select component parts to be used in their equipment based on the component part manufacturer's claimed failure rate per unit over time and against cost. i.e they would aim to use the most potentially reliable component they can afford.

In truth, very few electronic components fail during normal use. Most fail and are identified during post-production completed product testing and are thus never supplied to be installed anywhere.

However anything can fail at any time!
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: John Webb on December 08, 2010, 08:30:46 PM
There is also the fact that even small non-addressable panels often have several output circuits for sounders each individually fused or otherwise protected. So if properly used the failure of a complete sounder circuit would not completely silence the system within the building. You might not get the minimum sound levels in the affected area but something might be heard from adjacent areas if the designer has done their job properly.
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: David Rooney on December 08, 2010, 08:36:25 PM

In truth, very few electronic components fail during normal use. Most fail and are identified during post-production completed product testing and are thus never supplied to be installed anywhere.


Hmmm I need to put that to a couple of manufacturers we deal with..... and remind them about post production testing........
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Graeme on December 08, 2010, 08:39:02 PM
Thanks Graeme

Do you know of any case studies of them failing or why they fail individually?

Hi Piglet

Not case studies but from experience.
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Big_Fella on December 09, 2010, 08:22:48 AM
Even the odd sounder failing may not get picked up during the weekly test unless everyone stands by a sounder during the weekly test to ensure they operate.

Although there are a couple manufacturers on the market (and this is with addressable systems) who manufacture sounders with inbuilt microphones, this monitors the sound output when the sounder 'should' activate.  If no sound output is detected a fault is triggered at the main panel.
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Wiz on December 09, 2010, 08:44:58 AM
There is also the fact that even small non-addressable panels often have several output circuits for sounders each individually fused or otherwise protected. So if properly used the failure of a complete sounder circuit would not completely silence the system within the building. You might not get the minimum sound levels in the affected area but something might be heard from adjacent areas if the designer has done their job properly.

John, interestingly, BS5839-1 doesn't specifically recommend the type of 'interleaving' of fire alarm sounders of different monitored circuits that might achieve the scenario you mention above, other than in areas designed to accommodate a large number of people.

Whilst 'interleaving' isn't specifically frowned upon, the actual drawings & text included in BS5839-1 relate to a system with a single sounder mounted close to the cie on one monitored circuit, and all other sounders in the building on the other monitored circuit.

Therefore a system designer could still comply fully with the recommendations of BS5839-1 in providing a system where the complete failure of one of the sounder circuits means that there is virtually no alarm sound level in large areas of a building during a fire condition.
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Midland Retty on December 09, 2010, 12:43:42 PM
Therefore a system designer could still comply fully with the recommendations of BS5839-1 in providing a system where the complete failure of one of the sounder circuits means that there is virtually no alarm sound level in large areas of a building during a fire condition.

Thanks for confirming that Wiz

It was something I was unaware of, and a tad concerning if I'm honest

That said I take on board your points that sounder failures are, for the most part, few and far between so I suppose it has to be taken in context.
 
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Tom W on December 09, 2010, 03:44:40 PM
I really appreciate everyones participation in this, thank you very much
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Wiz on December 14, 2010, 11:05:58 AM
BS5839-1 seems to assume that a sounder circuit or its components is unlikely to severely fail for anything other than by damage caused during a fire.
I'm sure many people might argue that this is somewhat short-sighted, but there it is.
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Mike Buckley on December 14, 2010, 01:40:38 PM
Or does BS5839 pt 1 assume that any failure in the sounder circuits, outside a fire condition, should be picked up in the weekly test?

There is only so far you can go with the belt, braces, safety pin, bit of string etc. The whole thing has to be balance between the likelyhood of the problem occuring and the cost of curing it. It seems to me that one of the major problems with alarm systems is unwanted alarms rather than the failure of the alarm.
Title: Re: How do you answer that?!
Post by: Big_Fella on December 14, 2010, 01:56:12 PM
If the circuit fails, this will be monitored so would be displayed at the CIE.  If the internal conponents fail on an individual sounder this may not be hightlighted at the CIE until the weekly test is undertaken.  Even then it may not be picked up if persons are not near the sounder to recognise its failure.  It's no different to a conventional detector, where the internal parts may fail or may not sense 'smoke'.  This may not be picked up by the CIE until the device is physically tested during maintenance.

I don't think the odd device failure here and there is going to be a major issue, as this happens in all walks of life.  It was the probability of all sounders failing at the same time.  Sounders failing I read this as the internal components on all the sounders within the building failing.  It's a probability and likely hood case.