FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: kurnal on August 31, 2006, 01:32:22 PM
-
I wonder if any of you techie guys can help me to find a simple overview of where we are in respect of BSEN54?
I received a tender overview briefing document for initial comment this morning. The proposed building is a warehouse in England with full detector coverage and a mix of multi sensor and aspirating systems. The electrical spec makes no reference to BSEN54 and quotes undated BS5839 throughout for the fire alarm and detection system ( including part 4 for the panel!)
So I started to reword things to create a simple paragraph pointing towards BSEN 54 and then realised I am not up to date with where we are with the standard. For example I know part 20 was recently launched- but are any systems available yet that comply?
Can anybody point me towards a simple overview of where we are currently with regard to the relative standards please?
-
Kurnal
My understanding is that BS EN 54-5 & 7 represent heat and smoke respectively
BS EN 54-3 is the standard for audible alarm devices.
BS EN 54-2(CIE) & 4(power supplies)have replaced 5839 -4
BS EN-10 is for flame detectors
BS EN 54-11 is the standard for manual call points
Any use of non standard equipment would require agreement with all interseted parties and need to be recorded as a variation to satisfy BS 5839 part1 2002.
Hope some of this is of some use to you.
Not heard of BS EN 54-20, which product is this one for?
Regards
Ricardo
-
Many thanks Ricardo.
See this link for news on EN54-20
http://www.fseonline.co.uk/articles.asp?article_id=3793
Dont ask me any hard questions on it though- only stumbled across it today!!!
-
Thanks for that info Kurnal I am finding the site most interesting
-
Kurnal
more info on BS EN 54 if any use
1- introduction
12 - line detection using optical light beam
13 - compatibility assessment of system components
17 - short circuit isolators
18 - input/output devices
21 - alarm transmission & fault warning routing equipment
Regards
Ricardo
-
On a similar subject, I was told today by a panel manufacturer that 5839 was now officially superseded by EN54. Hence they could sell me a panel with no zonal LEDs.
Can someone please direct me to the official document that 5839 is no longer valid ?
Thanks....
-
British Standard 5839:2002 is valid and is the relevant standard for the design, installation, commissioning and maintenance of Fire Detection and Alarm Systems in Buildings. BS 5839 also recommends (for that's all it is, a series of recommendations) that components are design and approved to comply with EN 54.
Insurers require systems to BS 5839. Complying with BS 5839 would be the simplest way of demonstrating to a court that your fire detection and alarm system is suitable, should the suitability of a system be questioned.
The panel manufacturer can sell you what he wants, he can sell you a weetabix packet filled with mince, you won't find any statute dictating compliance with BS 5839, it's up to each employer to decide how they comply with the Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations, but one would probably find ones case much easier to make if one installed a system that was designed in accordance with the recommendations of BS 5839, it would therefore follow that the components used within the system complied with the standard and EN 54.
-
Chris
Would that be mincibix??
Wont the Construction Products Directive require the use of EN54 compliant components before too long?
( 2009???)
-
Not unless the UK changes its policy on implementation of the CPD. CE marking is "one way" to show compliance with the construction products regs.
-
Wont the Construction Products Directive require the use of EN54 compliant components before too long?
( 2009???)
I won't lie; I don't know.
-
On a similar subject, I was told today by a panel manufacturer that 5839 was now officially superseded by EN54. Hence they could sell me a panel with no zonal LEDs.
Can someone please direct me to the official document that 5839 is no longer valid ?
Thanks....
I was a bit disappointed that when BS5839 part 1 2002 was published that it, in some areas, it made recommendations that could not be met by equipment designed to the EN54 standard which was already in exsistance. Are we part of the European market or not?
An example, I understand, is that EN54 does not require addressable panels to have fire zone indicators whereas BS5839 part 1 2002 13.2.4 a) recommends that zone information should be given at the cie even if addressable text information is also available and 23.2.2 c) recommends that the form of zone indication should comprise a seperate led for each zone...
I understand that obviously EN54 requires fire zone indicators on non-addressable panels.
It has been suggested to me that the variances between BS5839 and EN54 mean that BS5839 is the 'tighter' standard and therefore you can do no 'wrong' in following it. However manufacturers have their eye on the European market and will obviously want to manufacture equipment they can sell EU-wide and are using the 'EN54 compliant' phrase as a selling point. So it would be easy for installer to buy 'EU approved' equipment that couldn't comply with BS. Very confusing!
However until someone tells us to the contrary, surely we must comply with BS5839 part 1 2002?
-
Wis
Spot on !
Conqueror
-
My understanding is that zone indicators are needed for various reasons:
They give fire fighters an (approximate) immediate idea of what percentage of the building is on fire.
Some text displays on addressable systems mean nothing to someone who does not know the building. I troubles me to report that the majority of buildings I visit don't have the necessary plans next to the main panel.
A fire alarm sytem that doesn't tell the fire fighters where the fire is, is not much use.
If we have to reduce our high levels to a lower level that others do in the EU I image there would be outrage.
-
Obviously fire zone indication is absolutely essential, but it appears that EN54 is saying that because it is invariably included in the text description of an addressable system, then that is sufficient indication. I actually think the BS5839 recommendation for led fire zone indication makes sense - I could imagine text messages being corrupted in some way during a fault whereas led indicators seem simpler and therefore more reliable.
What I can't understand is why there has to be differences, to confuse us all, in two standards that are meant to cover the same equipment in the same geographical area. I thought the idea was for harmonization.
-
i find that the end user does not look at the zonal led's on the panel but the lcd first on an a/a system.
Never known for text to be corrupted due to a fault only from incorrect programming.
-
Fire alarm panels have two main categories of end users. The first group are the building's normal residents. The second group are fire fighters.
-
i find that the end user does not look at the zonal led's on the panel but the lcd first on an a/a system.
Never known for text to be corrupted due to a fault only from incorrect programming.
True Graeme but (as Chris has said) it only applies if you know where the janitors store or the HR office is in the building.A zone layout (which should be beside the panel) with the zonal LED gets the fire crew heading in the right direction - certainly further investigation to the exact location via the text description can further assist them.
-
I agree with Buzzard and also find some of the two or three line LCD displays very hard to read and understand in a crisis- especially when you have to keep scrolling down line after line of text and when abbreviations are used. I would swap clear zone indication for poor LCD addressible indication any time.
One I have been working on today gave the following information - Fire - call point Domain 1 Node 3 lp 2 O/S 20 Z23 . Very helpful!
-
i find that the end user does not look at the zonal led's on the panel but the lcd first on an a/a system.
Never known for text to be corrupted due to a fault only from incorrect programming.
This is true, but we look after some multi tenanted offices whereby the text is matched to the name of the occupying company. - Yes I have told the Landlord this is a silly idea, but it does help to simplify the identification of the origin of an alarm condition, until a company moves out of course and 30 odd devices need re-texting.
On the subject of European Harmonisation, what harmonisation? - I think this only exists in the minds of political go getters and a few very rich businessmen (or are they one and the same?) who know the Brits will put up with anything "in the name of Europe".
I was in France recently and visited a few major towns, and looking at the standard of fire alarm systems and coverage in some of the bigger shops and offices was a joke.
I presume they are supposed to have a harmonised set of building regulations, DDA, Health and Safety, Fire Safety etc etc??
We are about as harmonious as a Les Dawson piano recital !!
-
But Mssr Dawson was very skilled, I'm sure we'll all agree. So maybe there is someone out there who will sudenly have sitting up paying whole hearted attention with breath baited! Or there again perhaps not.
At least if there is a floor plan and legend indicating where each head or zone is, it is not so critical how it is labelled. Better than nothing. Everyone in the role of advisor/assessor/enforcer must work down the same lists for continuity!
-
I agree with Buzzard and also find some of the two or three line LCD displays very hard to read and understand in a crisis- especially when you have to keep scrolling down line after line of text and when abbreviations are used. I would swap clear zone indication for poor LCD addressible indication any time.
One I have been working on today gave the following information - Fire - call point Domain 1 Node 3 lp 2 O/S 20 Z23 . Very helpful!
mcp on control panel 3 on the network,loop 2 pt 20 on zone 23. simple really :D
-
I agree with Buzzard and also find some of the two or three line LCD displays very hard to read and understand in a crisis- especially when you have to keep scrolling down line after line of text and when abbreviations are used. I would swap clear zone indication for poor LCD addressible indication any time.
One I have been working on today gave the following information - Fire - call point Domain 1 Node 3 lp 2 O/S 20 Z23 . Very helpful!
mcp on control panel 3 on the network,loop 2 pt 20 on zone 23. simple really :D
Exactly!!Descriptions written by a tech head with no consideration for Joe Public :-).
-
I agree with Buzzard and also find some of the two or three line LCD displays very hard to read and understand in a crisis- especially when you have to keep scrolling down line after line of text and when abbreviations are used. I would swap clear zone indication for poor LCD addressible indication any time.
One I have been working on today gave the following information - Fire - call point Domain 1 Node 3 lp 2 O/S 20 Z23 . Very helpful!
mcp on control panel 3 on the network,loop 2 pt 20 on zone 23. simple really :D
Graeme,
Very impressive! But I'm still a bit confused. Where is the 'Domain' bit explained in your 'translation'? And would you consider that O/S 20 could mean Outside room 20?
Maybe BS5839 should provide a recommendation for an approved format and layout of addressable panel messages. i.e something like Network Node/Loop No./Fire Zone/Address No./Device Type/Location Description
-
Maybe BS5839 should provide a recommendation for an approved format and layout of addressable panel messages. i.e something like Network Node/Loop No./Fire Zone/Address No./Device Type/Location Description
I'd think it more logical for the Fire Service and occupants if the above information was given in the reverse order - both need to know the location of the apparent alarm first and foremost and the source from which it arises. The other information only becomes more relevent when it becomes clear after investigation some fault may exist and needs to be sorted out.
-
The panel i am famillar with shows first activation zone first then the detector,then next etc.
Wiz-not suprised your confused by the text.It would mean nothing to someone not familair to programming control panels. Not very helpful as mentioned.
-
Wiz-not suprised your confused by the text.It would mean nothing to someone not familair to programming control panels. Not very helpful as mentioned.
yeah, obviously. I have been in the business of designing, installing, commissioning and maintaining fire alarm systems since 1978 and have programmed configurations into hundreds of panels but mainly only Haes, Android, Ampac, Kentec, PSS, Morley, & some Gents addressable panels, but I have never come across the term DOMAIN as part of the external or internal network of
modules or nodes. I thought maybe you had 'sussed' it and could explain.
-
Maybe BS5839 should provide a recommendation for an approved format and layout of addressable panel messages. i.e something like Network Node/Loop No./Fire Zone/Address No./Device Type/Location Description
I'd think it more logical for the Fire Service and occupants if the above information was given in the reverse order - both need to know the location of the apparent alarm first and foremost and the source from which it arises. The other information only becomes more relevent when it becomes clear after investigation some fault may exist and needs to be sorted out.
Sounds sensible. I wonder if BS would take it up?
-
Wiz-not suprised your confused by the text.It would mean nothing to someone not familair to programming control panels. Not very helpful as mentioned.
yeah, obviously. I have been in the business of designing, installing, commissioning and maintaining fire alarm systems since 1978 and have programmed configurations into hundreds of panels but mainly only Haes, Android, Ampac, Kentec, PSS, Morley, & some Gents addressable panels, but I have never come across the term DOMAIN as part of the external or internal network of
modules or nodes. I thought maybe you had 'sussed' it and could explain.
mabe a very large site so the zones are grouped into domains or areas for qucker location.
1978 eh. you must be getting on a bit then?
-
Wiz-not suprised your confused by the text.It would mean nothing to someone not familair to programming control panels. Not very helpful as mentioned.
yeah, obviously. I have been in the business of designing, installing, commissioning and maintaining fire alarm systems since 1978 and have programmed configurations into hundreds of panels but mainly only Haes, Android, Ampac, Kentec, PSS, Morley, & some Gents addressable panels, but I have never come across the term DOMAIN as part of the external or internal network of
modules or nodes. I thought maybe you had 'sussed' it and could explain.
mabe a very large site so the zones are grouped into domains or areas for qucker location.
1978 eh. you must be getting on a bit then?
Thanks for this. Makes sense. Never known Groups/Areas called Domains before.
Yes, now very thin on top, thicker in the middle and very fat feet!
-
Thanks to all I have learned more from this thread than I thought I didnt know.
The domain in this case is the system. Its a networked system of 7 Gent vigilon panels. There are plans to build a mirror image of the building on a site opposite both controlled from the same supervisory pc and I guess this will be domain 2. In this case Node is the particular panel each having up to four loops and the OS is the outstation which may be a detector, call point or interface. As the RP on behalf of this client I now face the job of re-labelling all the device information to make it a little more understandable for the security guys. Just wondering what to do after lunch...
-
Thanks to all I have learned more from this thread than I thought I didnt know.
The domain in this case is the system. Its a networked system of 7 Gent vigilon panels. There are plans to build a mirror image of the building on a site opposite both controlled from the same supervisory pc and I guess this will be domain 2. In this case Node is the particular panel each having up to four loops and the OS is the outstation which may be a detector, call point or interface. As the RP on behalf of this client I now face the job of re-labelling all the device information to make it a little more understandable for the security guys. Just wondering what to do after lunch...
Thanks for this Kurnal. I can now understand the need for a word such as 'DOMAIN' in these circumstances. OS is again a new one on me having normally only seen Device/Sensor etc. on the panels I have worked on. Outstation is a great word and sounds so much better than device. I think I could charge more for installing an outstation than a device, and will now start using it on my quotations!
Anyone else got any examples of 'hi-tech' words being used for simple parts of a fire alarm systems?