FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Tom Sutton on December 04, 2007, 08:01:52 PM
-
I received the following enquiry recently.
I use an alarm monitoring company for both security and fire response and the systems are housed within a box or cupboard. The security firm say that the fire related part of the system and cables must be housed in a fire proof container/store. Please could you inform me if this is correct? If this is correct, does all cabling to the fire systems detectors etc have to be protected? Is there a British Standard for this?
I know British Standard BS5839-1: 2002 Code of Practice for Fire Detection and Alarm Systems for Buildings is the current standard but I do not possess a copy therefore can anybody help and is there much difference between 2002 and 1988 copies?
-
I can help yopu with the info you need I have e mailed you
-
I can help yopu with the info you need I have e mailed you
William,
It would be nice if you could share the answer with everyone else..................
-
Chris, my reply was in response to part b of the question. I have a guidance document that explains the difference between the 1988 and 2002 standard, which I will e mail too long to publish on the forum.
-
I looked at this and thought.........this could be the start of a very long thread,but hey ho what the hell.
In answer to part A .......No It does not have to be in a fire resisting box ( unless it's a PABX and then it comes under another set of rules)
All the cables should have fire resistance AND the telephone circuit should also be fire resisting untill it leaves the building OR be protected along its route by sprinklers and or detectors. ( ever tried to get BT to provide you with a fire resisting line?) if the telephone line goes through a PABX room then you need to think again.
Do you use a common transmitter for the security and fire signal? if you do then you have a whole new list of problems to deal with or list them out on the certificate... There that should do it!!! the lid is off the worm can. Kurnal, can you get me a room with a view?
Dave
-
pretty much as the Bearded one but also the fire control panel and the intruder panel (assuming that they are using the intruder to dial out for fire?) should be protected by afd.
there are a couple of ways round using an intruder system for transmitting to an arc and complying.
-
Dave If you wish to enter Dr Wiz' Home for the Bewildered you will be very welcome. We promise a goblin teasmaid in every room and a bar in every window. Trouble is Dr Wiz is so content in Matrons bosom he rarely shows himself these days.
Now please educate me. This whole business of putting a fire alarm in a fire resisting box is completely new to me. Is it something a competent fire risk assessor should know about and look for? (that lets me out then I guess!!) I generally look no further than 5839, M, Lx etc and P1 and P2.
I wonder if this area of security alarms is a related issue I should know about. I usually come at it from another direction when someone has stuck a couple of smoke detectors on a burglar alarm and call it a fire alarm system.
-
Thank you William 29 very useful, TBY I though I had it all sussed with BS 5839 but as usual I was way off base. Could please enlighten us what these set of rules are. The alarm monitoring company is BT Redcare and it is a fire and security system. After further research is BS 7807: 1995 and BS 5979: 2000 necessary reading which it appears to be?
-
Hello playmates
Well I predicted it could be a long one. Up to my ar.. in it at the moment, just having a quick bite. I will get back to you shortly. As you can see Graeme is on the case,so he must have been there as well!!!!
Dave
-
Just extricated myself from matron's ample bosom for long enough to add that the standard of the power supply and the standby battery duty for the communicator should be to the recommendations of BS5839 part 1 2002. Obviously if the fire alarm signal is being transmitted by a communicator that is actually powered by the intruder alarm system, then the power supply for this may have to be upgraded to meet Clause 25 of BS5839 Part 1 2002 if doesn't (very unlikely!) already do so.
Matron has whispered to me, during one of our embraces, that there will be a party in the communal lounge for all residents of this home for the slightly bewildered on Christmas Eve as normal. I hope Professor Kurnal behaves himself this time. I couldn't face eating the Turkey on Christmas Day last year!
-
Hello playmates
I caught this flu bug thing again and it laid me flat for two days. Just back in the ranch late morning. Wiz is on the case as is Graeme. Any advances before we try and wrap up a definative answer?
Dave
-
as mentioned the phone line internally should be fire resistant but there other options from clause 15.2(i)
1) Use FR cable
2) Run through areas covered by afd
3) Run through areas covered by suppression
4) Run through an area of low risk
5) Any comnination of above.
If using an intruder system to dial to the ARC then as Wiz mentioned,the intruder panel needs to have the same battery stand by duration as the fire alarm.
One way of doing this on an addressable loop is to have two I/O units inside or right next to the intruder panel.
one i/o for fire and one for fault. Two spare zones required on the intruder systems which are set up as channels for fire and fire trouble at the ARC.
the cable and i/o's are monitored via the loop by the control panel.
-
Thanks for all the information, it helps a lot in understanding the problem.
I know BS 5839-1:2002 clause 15 refers to ARC's and it in turn refers to clauses 25 and 26 is this the only BS that requires study or are there other British standards or guides that need consideration?
-
As we have ''Security'' brothers within our group company this is always cropping up. This is from one we prepared earlier:SHARED FIRE AND SECURITY SIGNALLING
VARITIONS TO BRITISH STANDARD BS5839 Part 1:2002
............... has a reputation of providing the highest standards of quality and service in the industry. In order to maintain these standards, we wish to draw to your attention the implications of transmitting fire and security signals on a common communication path.
The prime motivation for combining both fire and security signalling is cost saving. This is achieved by sharing one transmitter and one telephone line, therefore reducing installation costs and recurring rental charges. It is often the case that the communicator is incorporated into an existing security system and that the national security standards require the transmitting device to be contained within the security system tamperproof housing. It is at this point where the fire and security standards differ; the fire standards being much more onerous.
The fire standard generally referred to is BS5839 Part1:2002 “Fire detection and fire alarm systems for buildings – Part 1: Code of practice for systems design, installation, commissioning and maintenance”. The fire alarm system must remain operational and be capable of signalling a fire signal (and fault signal) 24 hours a day 365 days a year, therefore, BS5839 lays down stringent requirements for the power supplies, wiring, monitoring and protection of signalling paths and equipment. In summation the security system will not generally comply with the standard and will have one or more of the following variations:
1. No fire rated and mechanically protected interconnecting cables (power and signalling).
2. Signalling cable path not run through areas of low fire risk.
3. Signalling path not protected by automatic detection / extinguishing.
4. No open and short circuit monitoring of the interconnecting cables.
5. No appropriate and correctly labelled 240V ac power supply and isolator.
6. No minimum of 24 hour battery standby in the event of a 240V ac mains supply failure.
7. No remote indication of a 240V ac mains supply fault to the fire panel.
8. No remote indication of a communication path failure to the fire panel.
9. Security panel does not comply with requirements of BS5839 Part 1 2002 (EN54 -2 & 4)
Apart from the differences in standards there may also be operational difficulties when combining fire and security signalling, in particular, when two separate maintenance contractors are involved. Should a “fault” occur with the communications it may not be obvious as to which maintenance contractor to call out. A security engineer might disconnect the communicator whilst working on the security system without informing the appointed fire “responsible person” who would not then know that the fire signalling capability was inoperable. It is also often the case that the security engineer is not able to test the fire alarm system in order to prove that element of the security communicator nor has the fire engineer access to the security communicator due to it being in a tamperproof housing.
The cost savings made by combining fire and security signalling need to be considered against the reduced integrity of the fire signalling path. If the fire brigade link is an insurance requirement then your insurers should be consulted for their approval. Similarly if the attendance of the fire brigade forms an integral part of your evacuation plan then the method of signalling should be considered in this light.
It should be noted, however, that the British Standard is all embracing and often there is a requirement to vary from it for a given application. A major requirement of the British Standard is that these variations are discussed amongst all interested parties, agreed and then documented for inclusion in the certification record. If the signalling equipment is being installed by a third party then the above variations to the standards should be discussed, agreed and documented with all concerned.
(To enable you to consider fully all aspects of combined communications we will supply on request a copy of the relevant sections of BS 5839 Part1:2002).
We stopped at this point because we are in danger of allowing non techies to drift off. From an insurance point of view when you have shared signalling, the fire engineer will put the system on 999 with the central station during his service visits. They will by default ignore all signals from the premises during this period. Hopefully nobody will need to press the panic alarms for an armed raid.................. All to save a few pennies.
There was an incident ( not one of ours) in the south (Portsmouth area I think) When shared signalling failed leading to significant loss. It was well reported with costs flying around in all directions from the man in the wig. I do not have a copy now. I can try to get one if anybody is interested.
Sorry for delay and I hope we answered the original question and raised awareness !!!
Dave
-
Thanks TBY a very full response and it highlights problems that could easily overlooked.
-
as Dave has brilliantly pointed out the flaws in penny pinching the irony is that customers reluctantly install fd+a systems not only to protect the life within their property but also to protect their business,so it's ironic that that choose to use the cheapest method on one of the most crucial parts of the system.
why pay good money to have a properlly instaled system only to skimp on the most important part.?
i have had numerous experiences of intruder digi's failing,engineers forgetting to take the system out of engineer mode after an intruder service etc.
renderning the fire system pointless after everyone has left the building.
what is the cost of a Redcare monitoring annual fee against the building going up in smoke and potentially going out of business?
-
Everything that Dave highlighted is absolutely spot-on.
However, I would suggest that not everyone is a PPP (Penny-Pinching Plonker) but many are just a CCC (Cost Conscious Customer) and will continue offering the following viewpoints.
1) BT's Redcare is unreasonably expensive because only they can offer the benefit of the remotely fault-monitored line. This includes on-going regular charges as well as initial costs. Customers hate not having a competitive choice.
2) Paying for two (or more?) BT Redcare services is not really cost-effective when the original monitoring service was designed to handle up to 8 different alarm warning signals on the same line, not just one signal. Why buy a car capable of seating eight people and then being told that if you and your wife want to travel to the same place, you will each need your own car?
3) Distrust of industries, manufacturing and installing high-tech systems, that seem to be unable to come up with a simple solution acceptable to the technical and operational requirements of both the fire and intruder industries. The existing multi-Redcare solution to the problems financially benefit BT, the equipment manufacturers and the installers only. Customer's hate being 'oversold'.
Until we can offer a usable integrated solution I can't see CCC's being impressed with the supposed benefits of arc monitored fire systems.
-
Happy New Year to you all and thanks for the kind comments re the post. Feel free to paste and stick if you want to make use of the list. I think I removed any ref to us but please check first.
On the multi channel topic, it is a shame that we don't have decent unit designed for the job.
Using the Wiz link to the car.... What if the drivers seat only came as a pack of eight and they chucked seven seats in the back just to use them up??? You could then argue that it's a single seat vehicle designed for a single task. the surplus just happens to be there NOT designed to be there for a specific task. Thus would you really take the wife and kids out in it? My recollection of the evolution of the multi channel digi was not far from the above. Our industry has just accepted them as the norm now and all other developments follow on. ( steps quietly down from his soap box and shuffles away with his flat cap)
What a shame that the Redcare FIRE stu was not designed to work on the SAME line as a Security redcare. Simple technology, just shift the frequency and bingo problem solved. I may be wrong but do you feel that ''more lines more money'' may be having an influence on the development ???
Matron, more pills please
Dave
-
Dave and Wiz- thanks for the information and I have already added the points you raised into the fire risk assessment checklist.
Also sent a memo to Matron not to buy the new minibus from a Yorkshireman. Sounds dodgy to me. Bit like having 7 back seat drivers. Wiz- are you still in Matrons clutches? Are you tyred of this thread?
-
What a shame that the Redcare FIRE stu was not designed to work on the SAME line as a Security redcare. Simple technology, just shift the frequency and bingo problem solved. I may be wrong but do you feel that ''more lines more money'' may be having an influence on the development ???
Looks that way Dave. Why can't they make a Fire Stu with more than 3 pins?
it would make life easier and cheaper to run the intruder from it as well
-
What a shame that the Redcare FIRE stu was not designed to work on the SAME line as a Security redcare. Simple technology, just shift the frequency and bingo problem solved. I may be wrong but do you feel that ''more lines more money'' may be having an influence on the development ???
Looks that way Dave. Why can't they make a Fire Stu with more than 3 pins?
it would make life easier and cheaper to run the intruder from it as well
Graeme I would guess that the problem is probably because the fire stu wouldn't be in an enclosure that was 'tamper protected' for the intruder requirements.
I believe that the intruder requirements don't have a negative impact on the fire requirements so my solution would be a special multi-system redcare communicator that met the protection requirements of the intruder alarm (apart from access to the input connections for the fire and any other non-intruder signals) and with a power supply that met the fire requirements. Finally, any isolating facility(ies) should only affect the signal that the isolation related to, and finally the loss of the redcare line connection created fault outputs that could be connected to any systems that might want notification of such a problem.
-
Wiz- ........Are you tyred of this thread?
Prof. K, surely you meant 'tyred of this tread?' And yes, Matron is still keeping me under her thumb. And sometimes just under her. Help!
-
Wiz
get your thinking cap on and make a prototype. remember us all when you make your fortune.
or get on Dragons Den.
G
-
Wiz
get your thinking cap on and make a prototype. remember us all when you make your fortune.
or get on Dragons Den.
G
Graeme, my geriatiric mind is still constanly full of ideas and 'improvements'. Unfortunately, I just don't have the time to follow most of them up, especially since Matron got her claws into me.
As a wizard, I'm used to dealing with dragons - but Duncan Ballentyne scares me big time!