FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Ron Winwood on October 25, 2006, 07:31:33 PM
-
I hope one of you good people out there can help??
I have fitted an inteligent addressable system in a shop unit - linked to main building control panel - My problem is that my panel resets in first stage detection after 10 mins, if no further (smoke) - i have been
informed that this does not conform to BS5839 part 1 2002 - i cannot see how this could cause any problems
Ron
-
Hi Ron
What Control panel and protocol are you using?
What size of shop etc?
-
Sorry i should have been more specific, It is a RAFIKI SITA 200 plus using total of 8 multi detectors/sounders
the shop unit is quite small - appx, 10m x 10m with 3 detectors in roof void, 2 in food prep, 1 above counter/servery and 1 in each store room - it is classed as L1. It notifys main panel instantly and if smoke has ceased within 10 minutes it resets. Double knock or MCP operation puts it into second (full alarm) stage.
I cannot understand what problems can arise as the centres fire and security respond within 3 minutes of both stage 1 and stage 2
P.S i also do not have zone indicators lit in stage 1 - but full and clear text description on my panel - has somebody got something against me ???
Many thanks for your time effort
Ron.
-
I forget to mention its a INTELLIGENT ADDRESSABLE SYSTEM
Ron
-
Ron,
I'm sure that the advice you have been given i.e that that the recommendations of BS5839 part 1 2002 do not recognise this as being a compliant operation is correct. It is generally never a good idea that any fire alarm system automatically resets itself.
However the BS is only a set of recommendations and guidelines. They can be ignored or varied as much as you want. However ignoring/varying the BS recommendations is not advised unless whoever does so, can back up their argument for doing so, with knowledge and experience in many disciplines.
The simple fact is that any variation from BS should be pre-agreed with all relevant parties including, at least, the building user, the building owner, the building insurer and any licensing authorities etc. etc.
If the mode of operation the system you have described is not suitable for the type and use of building that you mention, I am sure there are many members on this site, who have the experience in these matters who will give you the correct advice.
I can't believe that this mode of operation has been decided upon without pre-agreement of all relevant parties, but if it has been, then it theoretically it does not comply with BS5839 because the 'bits' that don't are not covered by a variation.
p.s. the above applies to all systems whether addressable or non-addressable!!!
-
Hi Ron
I don't think the world is against you but your set up is normally aimed at buildings with a high level of unwanted alarms i.e a Halls of residence.This would have to be agreed by all relevant parties too.
By using multisensors you have already reduced the potential of unwanted alarms.
-
Thanks all for replying, I have been informed that i have to take the system out at my cost and replaced by another company - and being made to look stupid.
The only specification i was given by the shopping centre management stated "system must be to BS5839
2002 part 1" and must have first and second stage alarm both activating the bulidings main alarm - which it did
- no mention in any way regarding cut off time
I sent the spec, to my distributors and they advised on type of panel - were they wrong or right ?? does the panel meet BS5839 2002 part 1 yes or no
Any ideas how i get out of this mess
Many thanks all,
Ron
-
P.S i rang the local fire officer, he checked the cause and effect for the building and again no mention of unlimited time for "stage one"
-
Ron
Are you sure your panel cannot be reconfigured to revert to full evacuaton alarm after a period rather than resetting itself?
I do not know anything at all about rafiki panels but many intelligent systems can be configured to operate on a first and second knock principle. BS5839 recognises that a pre alarm can be very valuable in reducing unwanted signals and allows a delay of up to 6 minutes between pre alarm or first knock during which time the cause can be investigated and the system reset manually to cancel the alarm if appropriate. Just maybe your panel could be configured in this way instead?
It sounds from what you say like you have to satisfy the landlord of the centre rather than the fire authority over this alarm system. Landlords can be very difficult as they often set very demanding and rigid rules rules which can become very outdated but they are in a very powerful position because you have no right of appeal. Fire Authorities have to be a little more open minded as their decisions can be challenged through the appeals process. I would have thought that the landlords concerns were for property protection rather than life safety though.
Does the panel conform to BSEN54? If so you may be able to push european compliance?
-
Thanks kurnal,
My fag input has just been dropped from 60 a day to 10.
The Rafiki sita 200 plus seems to be one of the best arround for the prevention of false alarms,
The system is doing everything you mentioned in your reply.
if you get a minute visit their website.
rafikiprotection.com
Ron
-
If you asked the distributor for one thing and got another then i would take that up with them.
As Kurnal says it should be able to be reprogrammed.
-
Ron,
At your initial enquiry I assumed that you were asking if what you had complied with BS, which it doesn't, but now it would seem that you are saying that you are being asked to replace the installed system with a different system that does comply.
I also don't know much about the Rafiki panel but I would be absolutely stunned if the automatic reset facility was a standard non-programmable function. If it was, it wouldn't comply to BS5839 and Rafiki are a large enough company to not make such a simple mistake.
It must be that you have either asked the supplier or commissioner to 'configure' this panel to operate in the manner it does.
Therefore, if you now don't want it to operate in this way, ask a Rafiki commissioning engineer to reconfigure it to the operation that will keep your customer happy.
But please be aware, that if whatever he now asks for doesn't comply with BS5839, you should advise him that it needs a Variation agreement from all relevant parties.
With respect to Kurnal's (my hero) answer please remember that most analogue addressable panels provide a warning called Pre-Alarm which is not a fire condition but a fault condition. It is a warning of the analogue value approaching the Fire warning level and can be useful in identifying a detector that is so dirty that it might soon give an 'unwanted fire alarm condition' when there is not a fire. (in a real fire, the pre-alarm fault warning normally operates a few seconds before a full fire alarm condition). In true double-knock systems it usually takes two detectors or more to be in fire condition before it is considered to be a full fire condition.
Therefore, whilst it is common for the operation of the first detector in a double-knock system to provide some warning, and this might be called by some people as a Pre-Alarm condition (when it should really be called First Stage/First Knock), this should not be confused with the common pre-alarm fault condition that is available on many panels.
-
Ron,
Here's an extract from
http://www.rafikiprotection.com/article1.html
At the design stage, fire zones are designated as "dwelling" or "communal". Detectors in dwelling zones (e.g. apartments hotel rooms etc.) are enabled with the "logical link" feature. This then allows the control panel to be simply programmed with a variable time alarm confirmation period.
In the event of a fire being detected in a dwelling only the local (room) sounder will operate to alarm occupants of that particular dwelling. The control panel will then carry out a number of checks over this period (which may be 2 minutes, for example) to confirm the detector is still in alarm and is a genuine fire and not a false alarm generated by cooking fumes, steam etc.
If during this checking period the detector ceases to signal alarm the control panel will automatically reset the detector/ sounder and the system will revert to its normal state.If, however, at the end of the confirmation check the detector is still generating an alarm signal the control panel will instantly sound all alarms in the building for evacuation.
Detectors sensing a fire or call point activation in communal areas instantly generate a full alarm throughout the building.
End of extract
Ask your commissioning engineer to reconfigure the zones you're using to a "communal" type, then you will get a "latched" alarm that will conform to your landlords requirement .
Regards
Rich
-
Ron, who designed this system?
Presumably it's a recent installation, so where is the agreed specification, cause and effects, etc?
Who decided how the system should operate?
Has it been certificated correctly and have the variations from BS been documented ??
-
You may find that the main building has a preference that all systems are the same throughout.However (as stated) the requirements should be achieved via proper configuration programming of your existing system.
However you will probably find that the "house" company get their arm in for connecting you onto the main system (bad boy - imagine using someone elses gear indeed!!).
-
I have found out that the company who failed our alarm had quoted for the work in the first place (unknown to me) they said our system does not comply with BS5839 2002 part1 but with part6 instead, Rafiki has told me it does.
Because the new shop unit tennant cannot open he has instructed me to "Rip it out" all at my cost (and be installed by the company who failed our system)
If somebody has got the time to read the original spec, i will type it out word by word.
it states in short " must comply to BS5839 2002 part1" and is followed by a multi event check list - which our system met it was only at the witness check was it mentioned first stage must be continuous.
Ron
-
P.S if anybody thinks i am to tight to purchase all BS documents thats not the case. I had my briefcase lifted (from my car boot) with tons of documents and my lappy
so ive got to wait for father christmas to come.
Ron
-
Ps i promise i wont do anymore ps,s
-
Ron,
BS5839 2002 Part 6 relates to systems in domestic dwellings. I can't see that this has any reference to your system. Also it is not normally someone's job to calculate which Standard a system actually complies with, but normally only to confirm if it does or does not comply with the Standard it has been said the system should comply with. I reckon this other company is trying to overwhelm you and your customer with Bull***t!!! Don't let them get away with it!
I'm pretty sure that the equipment you are using is compliant in itself, but what is not compliant with BS5839 2002 Part 1 is the way you have programmed (configured) the panel to operate.
As many of us have previously advised, get the panel reconfigured by an engineer to do what you are now being asked to provide. It will probably take minutes and not cost a lot. It will defintely be cheaper than ripping the whole lot out!
For your information there are many British Standards. BS5839 2002 Part 1 covers the design, installation, commissioning and servicing of the type of building you are involved with. There are also other BS that cover the various parts of equipment (that relate to how they should be designed and manufactured). For example, BSEN54-2 is for control and indicating equipment. BS5839 2002 Part 1 recommends the use of equipment that meets the other BS design and manufacturing recommendations.
Your Rafiki panel will meet the BS recommendations for design and manufacture. Rafiki are a big company who know what they are doing. They surely wouldn't manufacture a panel that doesn't comply, and they have confirmed to you that it does.
When you use any panel in an installation, the design, installation, commissioning and servicing of that system should comply with BS5839 2002 Part 1.
It is normally possible to configure BS compliant equipment, that is programmable, to suit a non-compliant installation. This may be required where a specific non-compliant requirement is made to suit the building type or use of that building. When this is done, the non-compliant element could be agreed, in writing, by all relevant parties as a Variation. This then basically becomes a BS compliant system because there is an agreed Variation!
-
I have found out that the company who failed our alarm had quoted for the work in the first place (
sour grapes perhaps?
-
Cheers Wiz i have programmed the panel with the good help of rafiki - the max time it holds on to first stage
( so long as smoke as gone ) is 7.1/2 mins and if all clear resets - can this be against BS???
And Graham yes its feels that way - at great cost to me
does anybody know of any good consultants that could at least back me up a little
we are talking david and goliath here !!!
Thanks,
Ron
-
In Reply to David Rooney (? No14)
Its a new installation - the original installation was part of buildings main loop - no seperate control panel
the specification - very basic - was supplied by the shopping centre management - just stating that the system
should conform to BS5839 2002 part 1 and pass a long list requirements (which our system did) No mention anywhere or by anyone untill the day of the witness test regarding length of time for stage 1
I have recently learned ADT failed above test 4 times in another unit
It has been certified - i did not know of any variations
Ron
-
Here follows the spec, for which our system met - this was supplied by shopping centre management
as you can see no mention time for first stage timing.
Ron.
General Requirements:
All Shop Units Are To Be Served With An Analogue Addressable Fire Alarm Control Panel.
The System Must Have The Ability To Signal Via Clean Change Over Contacts The Londlords Main Interface
Without Exception.
The Level of Design Must Be Of on LI Standard to B.S5839 Port 1 2002.
We Recommend That You Contact The Local Fire Officer And Building Control Before You Instruct Any Work.
Shop Unit Cabling To Landlords Interface:
The Wiring between The Tenants Shop Panel and Landlord’s Interface is The Responsibly of The Tenants
Contractor.
It Must Be Classed As Prolonged Operation of Fire’ and Calculations of Volt Drop Etc Based Upon The I.E.E Wiring
Regulations. The Following Signals Are Required:
• 24v Auxiliary Supply (To Power Landlords Interface)
• Closed Fault Contacts (Open Any Common Fault Shop Panel) ~
• Stage 1 Signal (To Close En Fire Condition)
• Stage 2 Signal (To Close In Fire Condition)
• Evacuation Input (Open In Normal State Closed By Landlords Fire System As Applicable)
• Sprinkler Valve Tamper/Partial Closed (Normal State Closed Open When Valve Operated To Valve Off)
Conformity Check List (Do Not Request Witness Test Unless You Your System Conforms To the Following
1.Commissioning Paperwork Available
2.Tenant Panel Clear of All Fault Indications
3.Single Knock Operation (Single Detector)
4.Stage I Transfer Only
5.Shop Unit Alarms Pulsing . .
6.Music Relay Operated
7.Double Knock Operation (Another Detector Alarmed)
8.Stage 2 Transfer
9.Shop Unit Alarms Continuous
10.Music Relay Operated
11.Air Conditioning Relay Operated
12.Red Beacon Operated
13.Manual Call Point Operated
14.Stage 2 Transfer Only
15.Shop Unit Alarms Continuous
16.Music Relay Operated
17.Air Conditioning Relay Operated
18.Red Beacon Operated
19.Sprinkler Flow Switch Operated
20.Stage 2 Transfer Only
21.Shop Unit Alarms Continuous
22.Music Relay Operated
23.Air Conditioning Relay Operated
24.Red Beacon Operated
25.Evac Input Signal From building main panel
26.No Stage 1 or 2 Relays To Operate
27.Common Fault From Shop Panel Tested Outward
28.Valve Tamper/Partial Closed Tested Outward (Wired Directly from Valve To Landlord Interface Not Connected To Shop Unit).
-
On the failure notice it read:
Shop unit panel non compliance in relation to auto silence & reset (part 6 not part 1 2002)
No zone lamp indication upon stage 1 activation refer to item in relation auto reset non
compliance, transparent signal
-
Cheers Wiz i have programmed the panel with the good help of rafiki - the max time it holds on to first stage
( so long as smoke as gone ) is 7.1/2 mins and if all clear resets - can this be against BS???
Ron,
I can see nothing on the outline specification asking for automatic reset. It is not recognised in BS5839 2002 Part 1. Why have you included it?
There is probably no mention of any stage 1 timing because there is no need for any. My guess is stage one (one detector operating) initiates the local shop sounders only and signals the shopping centre control who will investigate but not yet evacuate the whole shopping centre. Stage two (second detector operates) initiates a signal to the shopping centre control centre who will start immediate evacuation, of the whole shopping centre if it is open. If your system automatically resets after a timed period, it is against the shopping centres agreed system of identifying and responding to possible fire conditions.
I also note that you say no fire zone indicator operates on stage one. Why not? This is also not recommended in BS 5839 part 1 2002.
A previous posting advises changing the detector operation from 'dwelling' to 'communal ' to get rid of the auto reset. I have no experience of this Rafiki system but I'm guessing you haven't done this becaus you can't get one of the other specified requirements to work without using it, possibly the two stage action? If this is the case then you have a big problem. You obviously have to comply with the specification and that includes complying with BS5839 2002 part 1.
I'm sorry if I disappont you, but you are not going to find anyone on this site willing to say something complies, if they know it doesn't.
-
Dr Wiz O wise one
Would BSEN 54 also specify zone indication on first knock or would the address of the device on the display be enough for the european code? I seem to think in the clouded confusion of my troubled mind there is a difference between the two standards on this?
-
Do you all think that at least an unlimited time on stage 1 be mentioned in their spec,??
Is Rafiki wrong to say the panel complies with both BS5839 and EN54 ???
Should the lives of people be "clouded" in all this confusion ???
The panel only resets in stage 1 if smoke clears.
Cant common sense prevail here ??
Ron
-
Yes, Kurnal my friend. We have mentioned before on this site the requirement for fire zone indicators in BS5839 2002 Part 1 when, amazingly, there is no requirements for fire zone indicators on addressable panels in the related European standard. The simple fact is that generally, and specifically in Ron's project, the requirement is for compliance with BS5839 2002 Part 1, so there is no confusion as to what is required in this case.
However the zone indicator is not the major issue here, and since Ron has indicated that there is fire zone indciation for stage 2 surely it could be made to work on stage one.
After all this time, I think we have got to the stage where it is obvious that it seems the Rafiki equipment cannot be programmed to do everything that Ron's customer asked for, otherwise Ron would have had it reprogrammed. Therefore it is patently unsuitable for the job in his customer's eyes. Whilst the Rafiki panel obviously complies with the Standards for control and indicating equipment. It seems it cannot be programmed to give the functions required without including a function that is not recognised in BS5839 2002 Part 1. This is the standard required for this type of premises and unless Ron's customer and other relevant parties agree a Variation, then it simply will not comply. Why should his customer and others agree to this non-compliance with BS5839 2002 Part 1 if they specifically mentioned it must do?
Sorry Ron, but I think you have no simple way out of this problem (see below). It is important to check you can meet a customer's requirements exactly before agreeing to take on a job.
May I also offer some advice, Ron? Never choose a system with a 'closed' protocol (operating language) when you have a choice. It would seem that Rafiki's panel can't do what you want it to do. If you had chosen say, Apollo or Hochiki, for your accessories you would now have a choice between dozens of control panel manufacturers, one of which, would surely have a configuration programme that would do what you want it to. This would obviously mean the replacement of a control panel only instead of the whole system.
p.s. Ron, are you sure Rafiki cannot find a way around this problem? Most addressable panels I have ever used have so many programmable functions that there is almost always a way around this sort of problem. Sometimes the solution involves the use of extra relays and/or input/output units, but it is a solution. I have no experience of Rafiki so I can offer no specific solutions for your problem. You might also want to try asking in the fire section of the security installer forum, there are dozens of 'techies' hiding in there, and some of them might have Rafiki experience.
-
The basic answer i am begging for is,
Is what they were asking for a "variation" to BS ??
and should it have been mentioned on the spec, i sent earlier as i mentioned before it
was only during the witness test this was mentioned
Have i got anything to go on
And yes given more time i could have solved the problem somehow - i was given a day
to sort it - or rip it out
Thanks all
Ron
-
It looks to me Ron that what they were asking for was full compliance with BS5839 part 1 2002 system type L1. All the interfaces they describe in their acceptance test whilst not specifically detailed in the BS are in keeping with it though the last point 28 does not appear to be relevant to the acceptance test as it is not part of the tenants system.
From your description the system you installed did not comply with BS5839 part 1 for several reasons-
principally BS5839 part 1 does not provide for automatic reset of first knock alarms and your first knock alarm did not give a zone indication on the panel.
If the compliance with BS5839 part 1 was essential to the contract you were snookered from the outset. A BSEN54 panel is unlikely to give zone alarms because BSEN 54 does not call for it. This would not have normally been a serious problem though and could have been recorded as an accepted deviation from BS5839 part 1 on the commissioning certificate. But only if the client was prepared to accept the deviation. Most clients probably would be prepared to do so because the BSEN 54 panel is generally accepted as a suitable component to use within BS5839 systems.
The self resetting first knock alarm is not recognised or covered by BS5839 part 1 so this would not comply. However it may have been possible to reconfigure the panel to eliminate this and to make your panel comply with BS5839 part 1.
So it seems they just held you to the spec word for word and the system you provided was a variation to their spec and to the BS5839 part 1. What did you ask your supplier to provide? You could have some comeback if you handed their spec to your supplier.
-
Oh Wiz you gonn an done it agin,you are wasted on this forum,you deserve better.........
If I have offended anyone please accept my apology,my views do not reflect those of my Keepers,Carers or Employers who have there own views which I would not chalenge on this forum.
-
So it seems they just held you to the spec word for word and the system you provided was a variation to their spec and to the BS5839 part 1. What did you ask your supplier to provide? You could have some comeback if you handed their spec to your supplier.
Spot on, Special K.
Ron, I can't see anything in the outline spec. you have provided from your customer that looks like it should be recorded as a Variation specifically. If you are looking for other variations in their spec. to use as an argument that your variation should also be accepted I would advise that this is probably not likely to prove anything much. I am pretty sure that this is a standard spec. for requirements at this shopping centre that has been pre-agreed by all relevant parties and is probably also included in the rental agreements that all prospective tenents agree to.
Unfortunately, the simple fact appears to be that the equipment you have provided cannot meet the spec. and unless the relevant parties agreed the difference in operation of your system as a Variation, then it does not comply to BS5839 2002 Part 1 which was clearly stated as a requirement in the spec. Sorry mate.
-
Oh Wiz you gonn an done it agin,you are wasted on this forum,you deserve better.........
Lucky, me old mate. You can't get rid of me that easily.
I agree that I am often 'wasted', but very rarely whilst on this forum.
I don't know what I have supposed to have done. But that is really no surprise...
There are three types of people in this world;
Those that make things happen...
Those that watch things happen....
And those that wonder what the F**k happened!
I place myself firmly in the last group.
-
Thanks everyone - So does my confused little brain tell me that the Rafiki sita plus panel does not comply
with BS after they assured me it does ???
Ron
-
Thats the bottom line Ron but if chasing them you will have to explain why - and the reasons are as explained by the wizard.
-
Ron,
I'm sure I've made this clear before, but I would be pretty certain that the Rafiki panel complies with BS in itself. However the way (panel programme configuration) you are using it, i.e with the panel configured to operate in a manner complying with one of the recommendations of Part 6, does not comply with the recommendations of Part 1. If you were to reconfigure it to do away with the Part 6 function then it would comply with Part 1. However, I suspect, that if you do this, it won't be able to achieve one of the requirements (I'm guessing it is two stage operation) of the specification required for your particular project.
-
Thanks Wiz
I got Rafiki to contact the company who failed our system - Rafiki rang me back to say it could not be programmed to meet his needs,
I am getting even more confused now because the panel can do what it requested on the spec i sent
to them - could it be a variation that should have been mentioned ???
Ron
-
If the panel can do what you asked for then you did not get what you asked for in the first place and you should take that up with them regarding all the grey hairs and sleepless nights they have casued you.
However
Smirnoff and Berkley send their thanks.
-
Cheers graeme - i have had to read your comment 6 times before it sank in - thats how bad it is.
does anybody know of a site with BS 2002 part 1 etc - word for word - until ive saved my pocket
money up for another set ???
Ron
-
By the way buy some shares from benson & hedges and tennants super - smirnoff is having no effect
-
tennants super - smirnoff is having no effect
drink it fast through a straw.
-
does anybody know of a site with BS 2002 part 1 etc - word for word - until ive saved my pocket
money up for another set ???
Ron
Ron,
The BSI would sue anyone who reproduced their documents in a format that enabled people to get a copy without paying the BS charges. I have heard of some people who go to a larger library who are likely to stock most BS's as a refence document and use the photocopying machine at the library to make a copy. At 10p a sheet this would still be an expensive process but much much less than buying a copy from BSI. Please note however that what these people are doing is totally ILLEGAL and I am not suggesting anyone should follow their methods!
With respect to your problem, if you originally showed Rafiki, or whoever suggested that panel, the specification which you have listed elsewhere on this question, then they should have known that it couldn't comply with the specification. This may be your only way of finding someone to blame.
For your next job, please remember the advice I gave you previously - Always only use well-known 'open protocol' equipment ( i.e. Apollo or Hochiki etc.) because this gives you more flexibility between the dozens of panel manufacturers that use that protocol. The smooth-talking salesmen of 'closed protocol' products are nowhere to be found when it turns out their product doesn't do what it should, or has annoying fault glitches, or is found to be horrendously expensive to maintain over the years. Thousands of people have had to learn this lesson the hard way over the years.
-
Cheers Wiz - i must admit your right on open protocol - i recently replaced an old TANN system in a nursing home (200+ detectors) - using a MORLEY panel and Hotchiki Detectors
without any problems ( apart from 2 x pyros being slightly down ),
Without the risk of going into a long winded battle - im a bit stuck - with risk of me repeating myself at what part is RAFIKI wrong they keep assuring me the equipment does meet BS and that the panel does everything mentioned on the spec, i downloaded earlier - with theexception of the extended first stage part,
The point i keep harping on about is should the spec mention prolonged first stage - because
if i had known i would have quoted for a more expensive system.
I dont believe in cutting corners - the system i put in used only 8 detectors ( and that was over the top)
I am not looking for anyone to agree with me if im wrong - but is it a variation or not
Many thanks
Ron
-
i would say no as a variation should be an intentional engineering justification not one that was overlooked or in error.
As your panel can do what you originally asked for but you got another by error then it's not a variation.
-
Totally agree with Wiz on the use of Open protocol systems.
-
Cheers Wiz - i must admit your right on open protocol - i recently replaced an old TANN system in a nursing home (200+ detectors) - using a MORLEY panel and Hotchiki Detectors
without any problems ( apart from 2 x pyros being slightly down ),
Without the risk of going into a long winded battle - im a bit stuck - with risk of me repeating myself at what part is RAFIKI wrong they keep assuring me the equipment does meet BS and that the panel does everything mentioned on the spec, i downloaded earlier - with theexception of the extended first stage part,
The point i keep harping on about is should the spec mention prolonged first stage - because
if i had known i would have quoted for a more expensive system.
I dont believe in cutting corners - the system i put in used only 8 detectors ( and that was over the top)
I am not looking for anyone to agree with me if im wrong - but is it a variation or not
Many thanks
Ron
Ron,
I apologise if I have not explained this clearly enough on the numerous occasions I have previously explained it.
Rafiki are telling you that their panel complies with the BS for control and indicating equipment i.e. it is designed and manufactured to the recommendations of that Standard. Furthermore, it has been designed for possible use in both Part 1 and Part 6installations.
Please note that generally an installation is designed and installed to either Part 1 or Part 6, but not both. However this Rafiki panel has functions that will allow it to be used in either type of installation.
Your project's specification asked for a specific function that could only be complied with on this rafiki panel, by invoking one of the functions available for use in a Part 6 installation, but, by doing so, also meant that it could now no longer comply with Part 1 i.e it now had an automatic reset of an alarm condition on stage one.
Since your project specification asked for this function but also asked for compliance with Part 1, what you provided, did not meet the specification
Other control panels could probably have provided this required function, without the automatic reset, and therefore would have complied with Part 1.
The specification did not ask for what you are calling a 'prolonged first stage'. I don't even know where this phrase comes from. In typical two stage systems that could comply with Part 1, there is a time limit before stage one automatically changes to stage two or that stage two is immediate if a second fire condition occurs. There is never an automatic reset of stage one in Part 1 systems.
There is no Variation required if the system meets the BS. The problem your system has in complying with Part 1 of the BS could have been accepted as a Variation if all relevant parties agreed to it. Obviously they won't, so you have a problem.
Did Rafiki mislead you by saying that their control panel complied with BS? Probably not! - It is designed and manufactured to the BS for control and indicating equipment and could be used in standard Part 1 and Part 6 installations.
Was it possible for the Rafiki panel to meet the requirements of your project's specification and also the recommendations of Part 1? It appears that it can't or someone would have done something about it by now!
Did someone sell you the 'wrong' equipment for this project? Possibly! If you had shown the project specification to someone and got confirmation that the proposed equipment would definitely meet the specification, then they have been proven wrong!
Ron, I am not taking sides on this. I am just trying to explain it in a way that will be argued by 'the other side' if you try to fight it on the information you have so far provided. I have some sympathy for you. I owned an installation company for 17 years, so I've been through these sorts of problems myself. It taught me to get any promises being made to me in writing. Generally nowdays, the only person who catches me out by not complying with promises previously made, is my wife!
-
thanks Wiz for your time and effort - the company who failed me have been instructed to install their system
might be interesting to see if they will do the witness test on their own system (im being bitchy arnt i)
Ron