FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: pdenni on March 07, 2007, 09:29:18 PM
-
Hi there
Can any one please tell me the regulations regarding having Optical smoke alarms and call points working from an Intruder alarm system run in standard alarm cable in a public hall, as i have just come across this been done as new works and am confused as i would have thought it should be done in fp with a stand alone panel.
-
It's certainly not to 5839: Part 1 anyway!!
-
As buzzard says, such a system is completely at odds with the recommendations of the relevant standard. If it is considered necessary to have fire detection, the system should be designed and installed to British Standard 5839 and this system clearly hasn't been.
-
Thanks for the response
i find the regs slightly confusing as i understand about a standard having to exist but in which case why do Intruder alarm systems allow the inclusion of fire detection and where exactly is it written that you can or can not use this type of arrangement in favour for a reg compliant system.
Anyones help will be greatly accepted
-
i really am treading in unknown territory but I can only assume that the fire equipment that operates on intruder systems are for the domestic market.I know that the brigade like a nice panel with proper zones and maps etc.
There are so many ways that the intruder system doesn't meet 5839 it wouldn't be worth starting!
I'm gonna stick my neck out a little further however - can't intruder systems be used in certain cases for Part 6 (or was that the old regs??) - it's not an area that I really get into so I'll bow without arguement on it!
-
There is no legal requirement to comply with British Standard, but I wouldn't want to stand in front of a judge or coroner and explain why I chose not to.
However, imagine the situation where fire detection was not "required" but adding in some detectors to an intruder alarm system was considered a good, low cost, bonus. Then this would considered by most to be better than nothing at all.
However the problems that this could cause could get quite confusing. I assume there must be at least a manual fire alarm system. But I wonder if the smoke detectors going off lead to the fire alarm system sounding? I wonder if when the intruder alarm system detects a fire and sets its alarms off, if people then don't bother raising the fire alarm, does this prevent a signal going to the fire service, does the alarm stop as soon as the cables burn through, did everyone hear the alarm (is the volume high enough in all places as a fire alarm system must, does it cut the power to the disco speakers in the town hall at the time), do they stop evacuating as soon as the alarm stops. There are many things that could go wrong. I think some will argue that some smoke detection is better than nothing and some that will argue that all fire detection systems in buildings like this should comply with the British Standard.
-
Thanks for your comments, i think i would have installed the fire system to current regs but trying to persuade the customer that their current newly installed arrangement should be ripped out and installed to regs is unlikely, but with the changes to fire certification shouldn't this system have been certified and approved by the relevent peoples?
-
Fire certificates are not issues in the UK anymore. The obligation is on the person in control of the premises to comply with the law. If the fire alarm system had been installed as per the British Standard, it would be normal for a certificate to have been given, but as it is not, then one won't have been.
The "relevant people" are those in charge of the premises, it is their responsibility to get things right.
-
The 'Guide' to large places of public assembly in Part 2, Section 2, does not specifically state that an alarm system must be to BS5839 part 1. But it makes a number of references to this BS 'for further information' so it is rather implied that this is the appropriate standard to use.
-
Sounds like a varient of a pt 6 system which some manufacturers claim is suitable after risk assessment for small premises not exceeding the area of one zone, except using an intuder system as the control panel instead of a master callpoint/mini panel. A key question is are the detectors and call points pt 6 type ones i.e that usually have an integral sounder? If so there is a chance that based on the premises size, usage layout and risk it might be justifiable by risk assessment as there are several commercial premises using part 6 systems of smoke alarms and call point alarms with normal cabled that have been accepted by all relevant parties.
Although as a place of assembly with a higher risk user profile the extra protection & robustness of a Pt1 system may be preferred, especially if of any appreciable size orcomplex layout
-
i really am treading in unknown territory but I can only assume that the fire equipment that operates on intruder systems are for the domestic market.I know that the brigade like a nice panel with proper zones and maps etc.
There are so many ways that the intruder system doesn't meet 5839 it wouldn't be worth starting!
I'm gonna stick my neck out a little further however - can't intruder systems be used in certain cases for Part 6 (or was that the old regs??) - it's not an area that I really get into so I'll bow without arguement on it!
Part 6 Grade C
but the intruder system would have to have a minimum of 72 hours stand by.
if that was not possible it could be regarded as Grade E
-
hi everyone
carrying on this subject i have made some enquiries and found out that this installed system will be expanded and is basically being installed as per a stand alone system but working off of an intruder panel, run in alarm cable with callpoints and in the region of 10+smoke detectors, with this in mind is anyone of the opinion this must now conform to bs5839 due to the fact the building in question is two storey has kitchen facilities and has a suspended ceiling above which is plant equipment (air-con units) and is voided to about 8-10feet and is open to the general public.Any new views will be gratefully recieved
-
BS 5839-1 system required.
My own personal opinion is to always keep fire and intruder systems seperate.
-
Quite simply the responsible person should get a qualified person to carry out a proper fire risk assessment which will include the fire detection and alarm system. It is not the installer's responsibility to decide or recommend a system category and type.
You describe this building as a public hall, with more than one storey and having kitchen facilities. I'm pretty sure that anyone carrying out a risk-assessment in this building would probably ask for nothing less than a BS5839 Part 1 system.
The system using smoke detectors connected to an intruder alarm has quite rightly previously been described as the sort of thing you would have in a domestic situation where a few smoke detectors added to your intruder alarm system just provide an enhancement and not fulfill a need.
I also can't see the building's insurance company agreeing that fire detectors connected to an intruder panel are sufficient as a suitable system.
-
Quite right Wiz. Have seen this systems used to provide some property protection whilst premises are unoccupied to take advantage of the burglar alarms monitored link to a call centre.
The evacuation plan for a public hall will almost certainly require something more sophisticated than linked smoke detectors, depending on the way it is used of course.
-
In my personal opinion, you need a fire alarm system that complies with the recommendations contained within British Standard 5839, Part 1, 2002.
Chris Houston BA (Risk Management), FIRM, MIFireE.
-
pdenni - there you have it!
Chris has a BA in risk assessment, and he and all of the others that have answered and given the opinion that BS5839 part 1 is almost certainly required, all have a wealth of experience in these matters.
Whilst none of them can categorically say that a 5839 part 1 system is the only option (because none of them have all the facts to hand) they all agree that anything less than a 5839 part 1 system is hardly likely to be acceptable. That is the way to go. Accept nothing less.
Maybe this will be enough to convince your customer to have a 'proper' system.
I still suggest that your customer have a proper full fire risk assessment carried out first anyway. This is the real legal requirement in this matter so it could be suggested that this is the most important thing.
-
hi pdenni
i hav had a chat with my work mates at tecserv and ythey agree with all our people on the site, if you work from BS if the crap hits the fan then everyone can say it was carried out to BS then their is a bench mark to fall back on.
nearly all my advise on fire signage has to be to BS standards, then hopefully this will be good enough if i have ever to go to court, aanything less leaves every one open to prossicution.
just my thoughts sorry
-
hi
thanks for everyones replies
pdenni
-
In summary therefore, while it is not considered by many to be best practice to connect smoke detection into an intruder alarm within a non-domestic premise, it is not in direct contradiction of BS 5839-1?
Is this correct?
-
no
BS5839-1 relates to buildings and detectors into alarm systems do not comply with this standard.
-
BS5839 also recommends that there should be a uniform sound for fire alarms throughout a building. So if the smoke detectors have their own sounders, or if they initiate the burglar alarm whilst thefire alarm has its own sounders this is another area to consider
-
While we are on the subject of BS5839 and the prevous mention of appropriate standards and how you would defend ypourself in a court of law . It states in the Scope section of BS5839 pt 6 ;
" This part of BS 5839 gives recommendations for the planning, design and installation of fire detection and fire alarm systems in dwellings and dwelling units that are designed to accommodate a single family, and in houses in multiple occupation that comprise a number of self-contained units each designed to accommodate a single family. "Blah Blah blah" ". It does not apply to any premises used for purposes other than as a dwelling (e.g. small shops, factories or similar premises used solely as places of work)"
So how come I keep finding them in commercial/industrial buildings ? Just thought I'd ask ?
-
The risk assessment may show that no automatic fire detection is required for the workplace. But then for additional peace of mind or for an element of property protection, linked for example to a burglar alarm, the responsible person may wish to provide it as an enhancement. If the premises would comply without detection there little liklihood of a court case in these circumstances, civil or criminal
-
So that is why they state it is to compensate for no enclosure to a staircase, extended travel distances, or a single stair ! All in none domestic premises ! I must be missing something ?
-
No in the circumstances you describe they are inappropriate.
Butf If an enforcement officer you hold all the cards.
-
While we are on the subject of BS5839 and the prevous mention of appropriate standards and how you would defend ypourself in a court of law . It states in the Scope section of BS5839 pt 6 ;
" This part of BS 5839 gives recommendations for the planning, design and installation of fire detection and fire alarm systems in dwellings and dwelling units that are designed to accommodate a single family, and in houses in multiple occupation that comprise a number of self-contained units each designed to accommodate a single family. "Blah Blah blah" ". It does not apply to any premises used for purposes other than as a dwelling (e.g. small shops, factories or similar premises used solely as places of work)"
So how come I keep finding them in commercial/industrial buildings ? Just thought I'd ask ?
Because they are sold by at least one manufacturer as suitable for small commercial & retail buildings, village halls etc and areas generally less than 1 zone - therefore it's not uncommon to find a Part 6 grade C system of smoke alarms, heat alarms, call point alarms and a master call point alarm/controller linked. I often find these in smaller units that had no fire system at all when built as the certificate/section 9A/build regs at the time didn't require it, but are in reality just too big for a verbal alarm to be effective. The cost savings by a part 6 system (particularly in cabling) make them popular and are far better than nothing.
In multi occupancies you often find part 6 residential alarms used in either an L5 or P2 role on floors where tenants have put them in with no thought for other occupiers when adding heads to the central system may be more appropriate (especially with the experience of a recent fire where the tenant in the area on fire forgot to break the call point glass to warn the rest of the building after his single station smoke alarm alerted him to a major fire!)
-
So ? Are you saying they are satisfactory in none residential premises or not, we know why they put them in. My opinion is as per the BS they are not meant for none domestic premises. and do not compensate for a unsatisfactory standard of means of escape (generally passive).
Also there is no satisfactory test regime laid down for Pt 6 Systems under the BS5839 pt6 ,when provided in an industrial commercial premises, you would want to use the pt1 testing and maintenance procedures even when installed in any none single domestic environment.
-
I have occasionally asked for pt 6 systems as part of inspections. Risk appropriate of course.
Some buildings are generally converted houses and it may be, for example, to make up for a lack of compartmentation from the basement. Maybe 30min seperation when guides would ask for an hour. So you have something like a 2 storey terrace + basement that used to be a dwelling house, now it is an office, so no sleeping risk but different occupiers between ground and first. Why should they have to have a part 1 system?
As regards testing, 'a suitable system of maintenance' would clearly be required.
The employers guide used to specifically mention pt 6 systems and the new guides do not state a particular standard. Legislation simply states 'to the extent that is appropriate... fire detectors and alarms'
I am sure alarm companies do not like it and will possibly use the BS to talk people into pt 1 systems when a pt 6 may be appropriate.
If it does the job it is intended to do then whats the problem?
-
As long as they do the job intended ? I have no problem with that, but I believe they were designed to work and remain serviceable in a domestic environment also hence less servicing. It would be interesting to hear from a manufacturer to see if they are built to withstand different physical and atmospheric conditions found in none domestic uses. Otherwise, why spend millions on a formulae one car when a ford focus will get you around the track for an hour and half !
-
The formula one example is a good one. Why don't we all get formula one cars? Do you have one for going to work in? No? Do you have the top brand new ncap car because it is safer? Or do you own something reasonably safe, that is affordable?
I personally haven't spent millions on a formula one car because my little Peugeot gets me to work and back. It does the job it is intended to do. Sure, to protect my family I would like some nice big SAAB or Volvo, I realise that they could be safer, but I simply can't afford it.
Does some little 2 storey office has very different atmospheric conditions to someones house? Probably has actually, more dust in the house, kitchen will get used in the house. Steam from baths/showers etc. The office is probably a kinder environment for the alarm.
-
Do we have any manufacturers monitoring this site who could offer some insight ?
Was the statement in pt6;
"It does not apply to any premises used for purposes other than as a dwelling (e.g. small shops, factories or similar premises used solely as places of work)" For a technical reason ?
-
Ask Sensotec or BRK - they both market their Part C systems with call point alarms & smoke/heat alarms for use in the smaller non residential premises.