FireNet Community
FIRE SERVICE AND GENERAL FIRE SAFETY TOPICS => Technical Advice => Topic started by: Markbr on December 11, 2008, 02:35:21 PM
-
Hi, we have been called into a care home where the fire officer has asked for the zone sizes to be reduced so that search and evacuation time can be brought to under 2.5 mins.
We have recommended that rather than reconfigure the antiquated L1 system, we change the panel and heads for an addressable system.
However on further investigation we have found that the current system is completely wired in Twin & Earth i.e. not fire resisting cable. This was acceptable when the building was constructed but is not compliant with current standards.
From a risk perspective the building a 24 hour manned and obviously the cable loops for the addressable system are both monitored and in a ring so that a single cable break does not reduce the level of protection.
My question is what must we/the client do? Must we renew all the cabling to bring it up to standards or can we just change the panel and heads etc and state on our certificate that it covers all aspects apart from the wiring?
We have looked at wireless but the cost are astronomical and although the cabling costs will be around £8K its still cheaper to use FP200.
Any help greatly appreciated. Mark
-
Hi, we have been called into a care home where the fire officer has asked for the zone sizes to be reduced so that search and evacuation time can be brought to under 2.5 mins.
We have recommended that rather than reconfigure the antiquated L1 system, we change the panel and heads for an addressable system.
However on further investigation we have found that the current system is completely wired in Twin & Earth i.e. not fire resisting cable. This was acceptable when the building was constructed but is not compliant with current standards.
From a risk perspective the building a 24 hour manned and obviously the cable loops for the addressable system are both monitored and in a ring so that a single cable break does not reduce the level of protection.
My question is what must we/the client do? Must we renew all the cabling to bring it up to standards or can we just change the panel and heads etc and state on our certificate that it covers all aspects apart from the wiring?
We have looked at wireless but the cost are astronomical and although the cabling costs will be around £8K its still cheaper to use FP200.
Any help greatly appreciated. Mark
I would be inclined to suggest that you point this out to your client and wait further instructions. If they are satisfied that the existing cabling is suitable then that is their risk assessment not yours. Make sure you document everything especially that the client has been made fully aware of the situation.
-
Hi, we have been called into a care home where the fire officer has asked for the zone sizes to be reduced so that search and evacuation time can be brought to under 2.5 mins.
We have recommended that rather than reconfigure the antiquated L1 system, we change the panel and heads for an addressable system.
However on further investigation we have found that the current system is completely wired in Twin & Earth i.e. not fire resisting cable. This was acceptable when the building was constructed but is not compliant with current standards.
From a risk perspective the building a 24 hour manned and obviously the cable loops for the addressable system are both monitored and in a ring so that a single cable break does not reduce the level of protection.
My question is what must we/the client do? Must we renew all the cabling to bring it up to standards or can we just change the panel and heads etc and state on our certificate that it covers all aspects apart from the wiring?
We have looked at wireless but the cost are astronomical and although the cabling costs will be around £8K its still cheaper to use FP200.
Any help greatly appreciated. Mark
How old is it?Even pre-1988 the sounders had to be fire cable.
-
Under previous standards the zones could have been wired in T & E although the sounder circuits should have still been wired in fire resistant cable, to retain a 'ringing' system during a fire. Is this not the case?
I would point out to the client that the system doesn't comply with the current standards due to the wiring, and offer a solution to rectify this. Weather or not your client accepts they have to upgrade the system or not you have pointed this out and that is there risk
Maybe you could offer to upgrade the system in stages rather than in one hit to spread the cost?
Another option could be to offer remote LED indicators to detectors within the residents bedrooms etc, where by looking down a corridor an indicator would be easily seen rather than having to go into every room to check
-
The Client guessed at 15 years but the panel looks like something out of the Ark albeit it has "Complies BS5839" stamped on the front.
-
Have you got a picture of the panel? Or any further description of the panel?
-
No picture, sorry I've left site now to draw up this big quotation that my client will hate me for...
To pick up a point from another reply, the sounders may well be in FP, I only looked at the heads.
A different slant on the original question might be, if we upgraded the system to an addressable using existing wiring, could/would the Fire Officer issue an enforcement and insist the whole intallation was brought up to standard or it is just for the Proprietor to carry the risk?
-
It's such a major upgrade of the system that I cannot ever imagine that they would get away with not upgrading the T & E wiring to meet the current standards.
For example if an extension to the system was to happen you would wire all of that in fire resistant cabling linking into the existing, but all design, installation and commissioning certificates would only certify the new part.
All certification for this system if you upgrade to addressable, using existing T & E would basically say 'You've spent a lot of money, and the system still doesn't comply'. I'm sure no one would be happy with that.
Maybe iof the sounder circuits are wired in fire resistant cabling you might want to consider offering your client a Hybrid system where you utilise that circuitary throughout for say a loop circuit and incorporate loop translators on the loop with radio devices linking into this? just another option
-
Thanks Big Fella for the suggestion. Unfortunately as a care home it has very few sounders (circa 8) but about 85 heads. Using wireless head as I understand it would cost circa £165 per head as opposed to £25 for an addressable optical. The cable runs are quite short and I can't see the cost of wiring getting close to that sort of differential.
Pulling together all the kind and helpful advice, I think the answer is to go back to the client with the options and let him decide. I'll also recommend he involved the Fire Offcer in the discussion and then everything is above board.
Thank you everyone. Mark
-
As I recall they only changed the spec for detector cabling for simplicity. I'm not sure how critical it is.
Wheres mr Todd when we need him....
-
The only downside I can see if the old panel was short circuit = fire condition , therefore if you change it over you will be fully monitored.
The risk is only proportional to the fact the cable might be affected before a detector can operate , I dont see how your client could be forced into changing the cabling , you are actual enhancing what is already there.
The bigger question is why the zoning has now got to be reduced , it was obviously accepted in its previous life ? :o
-
A different slant on the original question might be, if we upgraded the system to an addressable using existing wiring,
No-as well as not fire resistant,twin and earth is also not screened.
-
The zoning had to be reduced so that the evacuation time for a fire compartment is below 2.5 minutes? Immediate or rapid identification of the source of the alarm apparently saves valuable seconds.
-
An addressable alarm will allow immediate identification of the location of the incident- a considerable benefit - but when talking about reducing the size of zones to achieve evacuation within 2.5 minutes they could be talking about the size of the fire compartment- eg putting a fire door across a corridor may mean that only 5 persons need to be moved in 2.5 minutes instead of 10 persons
-
Graeme's, point above is very important. Graeme's contributions on this forum are often short and to the point, but they are invariably spot on.
To expand on Graeme's post:
Disregarding the current BS recommendation's disallowing the use of pvc/pvc cable, you would still have to use an addressable system that can cope with pvc/pvc cable - if such exists! The capcitance of the cable along with the electrical shielding all play a part in the ability to send understandable addressable data pulses along it.
You'd be well in the s**t if you installed an addressable system on to existing pvc/pvc cable and then it didn't work properly. That would be a waste of money!
-
Mark,
I hope the system complies with the signs and signals regualtions - there is a requirement for all safety signals to have battery back up. This is not a "recommendation" or a standard or guidance, but a legal requirement of all safety signaling systems, irrespective of when they were installed.
-
This is probably not a fire safety issue but an engineering one. It is for the risk assessment to determine whether there is a credible scenario of fire shorting a circuit before it is detected and latched. Once the staff are aware and are dealing, failure of sounder circuits might not bring serious risk. EMC is probably the greatest problem with a new addressable system on existing PVC/PVC wiring. Wee B is right, in that we changed it for detector circuits simply to reflect custom and practice, rather than because of a major worry about loss of circuit integrity.
-
Mark,
I hope the system complies with the signs and signals regualtions - there is a requirement for all safety signals to have battery back up. This is not a "recommendation" or a standard or guidance, but a legal requirement of all safety signaling systems, irrespective of when they were installed.
Where is this bit in the regs Chris?
-
it's in the H&S (safety signs and signals) regs 1996
page 32 paragraph 8
-
Graeme's, point above is very important. Graeme's contributions on this forum are often short and to the point, but they are invariably spot on.
To expand on Graeme's post:
Disregarding the current BS recommendation's disallowing the use of pvc/pvc cable, you would still have to use an addressable system that can cope with pvc/pvc cable - if such exists! The capcitance of the cable along with the electrical shielding all play a part in the ability to send understandable addressable data pulses along it.
You'd be well in the s**t if you installed an addressable system on to existing pvc/pvc cable and then it didn't work properly. That would be a waste of money!
I tend to find that Hochiki is extremely bullet proof when it comes to old cabling , we have never encountered a problem on some old c*ap wiring we have had to deal with over the years.
Personally you could change it over and phase in over a period of agreed time fp to replace it , so at least it can be budgeted for and then everyone's a winner.
-
it's in the H&S (safety signs and signals) regs 1996
page 32 paragraph 8
Bells are classed as acoustic signage and so have to have back up.
-
it's in the H&S (safety signs and signals) regs 1996
page 32 paragraph 8
Can't find anything about batteries Graeme. Can you quote the paragraph text please?
-
Signs requiring some form of power must be provided with a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of a power cut.
A fire sign is defined as a sign including an illuminated sign or acoustic signal which gives warning in case of a fire.
Fire alarms are included in the term acoustic signal.
-
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19960341_en_2.htm
schedule 1 : part 1 : regulation 8
-
Signs requiring some form of power must be provided with a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of a power cut.
A fire sign is defined as a sign including an illuminated sign or acoustic signal which gives warning in case of a fire.
Fire alarms are included in the term acoustic signal.
Still can't see anything about batteries.
-
A guaranteed emergency supply is the batteries
-
Still can't see anything about batteries.
I agree it is doesn’t say batteries or instantaneous and although batteries would be the first choice, a power generator would meet the conditions of that clause.
-
Do we agree that required signs don't have to have battery back up?
What about powered signs which do not have to be there? Does one only have to provide emergency power to signs which are required to be powered?
-
I do agree but what would you use as a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of a power cut. I would imagine if the hazard has been eliminated then you would not require a sign therefore you do not need backup power.
-
I do agree but what would you use as a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of a power cut. I would imagine if the hazard has been eliminated then you would not require a sign therefore you do not need backup power.
Firstly TW I would assess if the sign was neccessary and if so if it is needed to be power. If this was so I would consider the circumstances and all back up options. As you say a standby generator could be used. I have recommended this for an outdoor concert.
It seems to be normal now for illuminated exit signs to be provided where a simple stick on sign would be adequate. I have also found it normal to see illuminated exit signs over final exit doors from buildings even when some are not required for escape purposes.
To me this is a blitz approach because installers don't know when they are not needed. IMHO
-
I thought this had started as a discussion on fire bells??
-
I do agree but what would you use as a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of a power cut. I would imagine if the hazard has been eliminated then you would not require a sign therefore you do not need backup power.
Firstly TW I would assess if the sign was neccessary and if so if it is needed to be power. If this was so I would consider the circumstances and all back up options. As you say a standby generator could be used. I have recommended this for an outdoor concert.
It seems to be normal now for illuminated exit signs to be provided where a simple stick on sign would be adequate. I have also found it normal to see illuminated exit signs over final exit doors from buildings even when some are not required for escape purposes.
To me this is a blitz approach because installers don't know when they are not needed. IMHO
Or perhaps they wanted to do more than the legal minimum? Perhaps we should commend those who do more than just what they have to?
-
I thought this had started as a discussion on fire bells??
Maybe Buzz but I was responding to a comment by Chris about safety signals requiring battery back up when this is not the case. A safety signal is not necessarily made by electrical equipment.
-
I do agree but what would you use as a guaranteed emergency supply in the event of a power cut. I would imagine if the hazard has been eliminated then you would not require a sign therefore you do not need backup power.
Firstly TW I would assess if the sign was neccessary and if so if it is needed to be power. If this was so I would consider the circumstances and all back up options. As you say a standby generator could be used. I have recommended this for an outdoor concert.
It seems to be normal now for illuminated exit signs to be provided where a simple stick on sign would be adequate. I have also found it normal to see illuminated exit signs over final exit doors from buildings even when some are not required for escape purposes.
To me this is a blitz approach because installers don't know when they are not needed. IMHO
Or perhaps they wanted to do more than the legal minimum? Perhaps we should commend those who do more than just what they have to?
From my experience Chris many clients are only going by what the professional installers recommend. Many people cannot see that there is a difference between a recommendation and a requirement and assume that they both mean the same, ie. must be done.
One of my last jobs was a FRA of a small open plan building, low fire risk situation which was blitzed with manual and detection systems. I asked the client why all of this was installed and she told me that the installer recommended it. She thought this meant it was required. After advising her that none of it was necessary she was pretty peeved to say the least at the waste of money.
-
Hope she invested in a dictionary afterwards (apologies in being flippant).
-
Hope she invested in a dictionary afterwards (apologies in being flippant).
Exactly. The word "recommend" and "require" are plain English. She has only herself to blame if she does not understand them.
If I was selling something, I would recommend that my clients buy lots of it. If they agreed, it's hardly anyone else's fault.
-
Does the Fire Alarm industry play on this public ignorance as is suggested in order to fill their order books?
Some may describe them as "Suckers". Surely nobody on this forum?
-
Does the Fire Alarm industry play on this public ignorance as is suggested in order to fill their order books?
Probably! I used to work in the industry and the lot I worked for would much prefer to sell an L1 over an L4/M. Who wouldn't?
Do training shoe manufacturers play on public ignorance selling fancy trainers over basic ones?
-
Does the Fire Alarm industry play on this public ignorance as is suggested in order to fill their order books?
Probably! I used to work in the industry and the lot I worked for would much prefer to sell an L1 over an L4/M. Who wouldn't?
Do training shoe manufacturers play on public ignorance selling fancy trainers over basic ones?
So there we have it.
The Fire Alarm industry probably does play on this public ignorance as is suggested in order to fill their order books?
The Fire Alarm industry probably does treat them as "Suckers".
There probably are those (more than two) from the Fire Alarm industry on this forum who probably agree that this is OK?
-
I don't speak on behalf of anyone, but I am not exactly shocked that people who sell something will try their best to sell as much of it as possible. When you think about how capitalist societies operate, this not really that controversial. Greengrocers will try to sell as much fruit as possible, consultants will try to sell as much consultancy services as possible, surveyors will try to survey as much as possible, fire alarm companies will try to sell as many systems as they can.
Just my take on it.
-
Does the Fire Alarm industry play on this public ignorance as is suggested in order to fill their order books?
Probably! I used to work in the industry and the lot I worked for would much prefer to sell an L1 over an L4/M. Who wouldn't?
the installer
-
How do you expect the equipment manufacturer's feed their starving children without us boys , you will have to excuse me , I have left the Ferrari running and I am concerned I might damage the ozone layer, its o.k my butler going to park it for me.
-
Short term customers get fleeced once.
Long term customers are kept by offering pratical solutions, its up to the installer to make his profit out of screwing suppliers, look how many of them drive flash cars! ;)
Personally I look at the customer and decide what they are willing/able to spend and quote accordingly, a charity is hardly likely to have the cash for a full upgrade but up in the big city they like to spend their cash on systems to make the tenants more likely to stay, it only takes half a dozen false alarms in the winter with several hundred employees outside for the tenant to start looking elsewhere.
Back to the original topic ;D, you can but advise them and quote to the standards, I am pretty sure care homes have to fill out H&S reports for their license on an annual basis, if they choose to ignore the fact their system is non compliant and predates 6 years of standards requirements they are not going to win any court battles, it may take a bit of effort to make them see sense but they will appreciate you in the long term.
-
I don't speak on behalf of anyone, but I am not exactly shocked that people who sell something will try their best to sell as much of it as possible. When you think about how capitalist societies operate, this not really that controversial. Greengrocers will try to sell as much fruit as possible, consultants will try to sell as much consultancy services as possible, surveyors will try to survey as much as possible, fire alarm companies will try to sell as many systems as they can.
Just my take on it.
Those who work in the fire alarm industry are not members of the emergency services (contrary what some think!) but in effect members of the "trade".Amongst all trades there are cowboys who will fit or supply more than what you actually need - it's a simple fact of business life.
If I'm asked to design a system without being given what category they want I will generally give them three options - all singing and dancing down to minimum then it's up to them what they go for.
-
............ its up to the installer to make his profit out of screwing suppliers, look how many of them drive flash cars! ;).............
Don't I know it !!!!!! ;)