Linking Part 6 systems to Concierge reception

[messy]

A posh block of flats with a 24/7 Concierge service has a L2 addressable AFD system with wall to wall smoke detection at present, and (unsurprisingly) are being plagued by unwanted fire signals from cooking fumes in the flats.

As a method of reducing these unwanted calls, they are considering a part 6 system in the flats in addition to the L2 (now with HD behind the front door in the flats) - The rationale being cooking fume actuations will be limited to the flat of origin and the HD with cope if the fire escalates and threatens the escape route

Nothing difficult so far- but they also want a link to the reception area, so that if any of the part 6 (local) systems operate the Concierge is alerted and he can activate part of their emergency plan of telephoning the flat (no reply = fire brigade called)

Sounds reasonable to me, but is the link between the part 6 system(s) and reception difficult to achieve technically?

[Allen Higginson]

If you use the EI range of mains/battery detectors you can get a relay base for them.Looking at them they operate in relation to the detector that has activated so you would need to fit one in each detector.
You would then have a two core going between each detector and monitored by an input unit on your addressable system.
http://www.eielectronics.com/p7.php#Ei128RBU

[David Rooney]

If you use the EI range of mains/battery detectors you can get a relay base for them.Looking at them they operate in relation to the detector that has activated so you would need to fit one in each detector.
You would then have a two core going between each detector and monitored by an input unit on your addressable system.
http://www.eielectronics.com/p7.php#Ei128RBU

Have seen this done before in some big apartment blocks in london....

But why cant they change the ringing patterns via cause and effects??

[Allen Higginson]

If you use the EI range of mains/battery detectors you can get a relay base for them.Looking at them they operate in relation to the detector that has activated so you would need to fit one in each detector.
You would then have a two core going between each detector and monitored by an input unit on your addressable system.
http://www.eielectronics.com/p7.php#Ei128RBU

Have seen this done before in some big apartment blocks in london....

But why cant they change the ringing patterns via cause and effects??

There is that right enough - bar the heat detector in the flat (I don't do apartments!) you could have sounder bases in the flats on seperate groups so that they sound whaen the detectors in the flat activate.There may be a problem with loop capacity on this however depending on which protocol is being used (although,even with Apollo you could set all the sounder bases in the flat to the same address which would cut down on your addresses).

[Rex]

Messy
"A posh block of flats with a 24/7 Concierge service has a L2 addressable AFD system with wall to wall smoke detection at present, and (unsurprisingly) are being plagued by unwanted fire signals from cooking fumes in the flats."
Staff alarm could be one answer in accordance with BS5839-1-2002 paragraph 19.2.2 with a time delay on the existing smoke detectors within the flats, but no time delay on manual call points or any other detectors, a signal is given to the fire alarm panel audible and visual-with no general alarm extra mimic panel could be provided if required- with the staff being alerted by pager system if possible, investigation period allowed [telephone flat ect] not exceed 6 minutes prior to full alarm being given, must be fully ageed with enforcing authorities. OR provide a part 6 system within the flats, and programme the smoke element out of the part 1 addressable system within the flats.  Reading your post fire detection is already provided throughout the building to a high degree, whatever course of action you take all occupiers should be informed accordingly, these are my views, but I hope it helps.

[David Rooney]

Messy
...... must be fully ageed with enforcing authorities.

A question in general..... if your proposal is taken up, and the RP has done a risk assessment to justify the delay and search period etc..... why does it need to be agreed with the enforcing authorities.....??

And if its a private "block of flats" then it probably isn't required to have a detection system in the first place so then technically could you not do what you want....!??

[messy]

It was the technical aspect of setting up this dual AFD syatem that I was interested in, so many thanks for your help & suggestions

It's a complicated occupancy, in that the large complex building concerned has some 'permanant' residents and some on short term 'holiday' lets - it's a mix of serviced housing and hotel (with commercial occupancies below).

The premises already has a seek & search procedure in which the Concierge can stop the alarm going to full alarm, but with a redcare link that turns the fire service out immediately the S&S period commences.

The RP is reluctant to reduce the current procedure, but now finds that on occasions has insufficient staff to safely carry out S&S routines. The RP has also flagged up on a recent FRA that the risk to relevant persons by unnecessary evacuations needs addressing. The FRA shows that 90% of UwFS (unsurprisingly) are due to cooking in the flats.

The changes to the AFD system would mean that a localised system within the flats linked to the front desk, but which does not operate the main AFD system. Actuations of the 'local' system would be investigated at first by a telephone call without the need to turn out the local fire station or evacuate anyone. Any actuation of the L2 system would go immediately to full evac.

It is hoped that this will the best balance of securing the safety of relevant persons in the flat whilst preventing unwanted evacuations to other persons by unwanted fire signals

[Big A]

Can I just say that an actuation (for whatever cause)of a fire alarm is NOT an 'Unwanted Fire Signal (UwFS). It is only when that signal is sent to, or relayed to via a third party, a fire service control room thereby initiating a response from the fire service.

[wee brian]

Big A - since when did you have the power to restrict the use of the english language?

Its a fire signal that they don't want - so it must be an unwanted fire signal!

[Dragonmaster]

I agree with Big A - if it remains within the building, i.e. no FRS involvement, it's a false alarm. Semantics i know, but it does help to differentiate between the two scenarios.

[Allen Higginson]

Big A - since when did you have the power to restrict the use of the english language?

Its a fire signal that they don't want - so it must be an unwanted fire signal!

I think we're getting into mixed terms here - from a fire alarm engineer perspective it's an unwanted fire signal if the fire alarm atrategy has been revisited.Maybe an unwanted evacuation by activation of the fire alarm would be more accurate though?

[Rex]

David Rooney
A question in general..... if your proposal is taken up, and the RP has done a risk assessment to justify the delay and search period etc..... why does it need to be agreed with the enforcing authorities.....??

And if its a private "block of flats" then it probably isn't required to have a detection system in the first place so then technically could you not do what you want....!??
From Rex.
David, I acknowledge  your vast experience in relation to fire alarm systems, however I believe along with BS 5839-1-2002, Section 3, top of page 91, if you apply a "filtering system" such as a staff alarm,  the BS states " filtering may be applied solely to the summoning of the fire service, but any delay needs to be agreed after consultation with the fire service". If you read messy's description of the building it is more than a block of flats, as you are aware the communal areas attract a RRFSO inspection, but unfortunately the L2 System is giving a large number of false alarms, it is also good  practice to liaise with the fire service to reduce the number of false alarms.

[Big A]

Big A - since when did you have the power to restrict the use of the english language?

Its a fire signal that they don't want - so it must be an unwanted fire signal!

Semantics maybe but it does help us to be clear. The CFOA policy on reducing UwFS (actually an IRMP issue - reduction of fire service attendances - rather than a Fire Safety one) makes a distinction between a fire alarm actuating that leads to that signal being relayed to the fire service (and therefore to a response) and one that doesn't. Both of these scenarios are false alarms but only one is an UwFS. It's not a particularly good title or definition but there you have it.