Fire System Upgrade

[ludo694]

We have been asked by a client to look into the FA system at their office complex that was installed in the 1980's to ascertain whether it conforms to the latest regulations (BS 5839:1_2002 and DDA). Generally the system comprised of conventional equipment (main and repeater panels, detectors and call points), with the call points at all final exits and detectors installed in ceiling voids and floor voids. Alarm bells were installed within the ceiling voids within the office areas. Additional ceiling mounted detectors were installed in some areas including kitchen, stairwells and plant rooms. Sometime in 1995, the panels were replaced by addressable panels, whilst retaining the other devices attached via addressable interface modules.

Does the current scenario conform to the latest fire safety regulations or would it be appropriate to replace the system with a fully addressable one including new cabling? Recommended category in this instance is L4/M

[Graeme]

If it was installed in the 80's and upgraded in 95 then it will be to BS5839-1 1988 so no to 2002.

Also if it's still using the original detectors via a zone monitor then that would make the detectors 20 years old.They have a recommended life of 10.

Unless the system has visual alarms(beacons) installed then also no to the DDA

Your L4/M system will just come under L4 which is to protect the escape routes but also has to satisfy the recommendations of a Manual system(M).

The additional detection installed in boiler rooms and kitchens take this away from L4.

[David Rooney]

Well put Graeme !!

Short answer no.

Even with the 95 upgrade, I doubt the detector bases were changed so it's unlikely you have proper head removal monitoring allowing call points to work if a head is removed.

From recent experience of modifying old systems I would suggest you rip it out and start again....

[Martin Burford]

LUDO...............surely the answer here is does it work ?.............if thats yes... then leave it in place. What is the point in getting your client to spend lots of money un- necessaryily.........this RRO is just an excuse to rip off unsuspecting premises owners, and anyone who goes along with this .. should be ashamed!  its just an excuse to line the pockets of so called fire safety consultants....!!
conqueror.

[Graeme]

How can be upgrading a possible sub standard ageing fire detection system be a waste of money???
One which due to it's age may start or has already begun giving false alarms,costing the customer in engineer call outs.
From the sounds of it,the system needs a bit work and certainly not ripping anyone off.

Not a very clever thing to say when there are people out there with very shoddy fire systems which work to a fashion but will be reluctant to upgrade as they think they are being scammed.They do not know any different and presume it's a working system,when in fact it's far from up to scratch.

My 240v system with no afd works when i test a call point so i,m going to keep it forever...........

[AnthonyB]

Whats the point in an addressable panel on a system of conventional detctor, sounder & call point zones - it seems to defeat the object?

Either rip the lot out and start again with all new addressable devices or just replace the aging worn out panels with new conventional ones.

Detector life is an interesting point - we all know about the recommended life, but I rarely if ever see it being brought up on a service report even if the detectors are obviously very very old

[Graeme]

It's usually down to cost.
Retro fit an old conventional system,re-use the old detectors via a zone monitor and install new additional addressable ones.
Re-use the sounder circuits through the conventional outputs on the new panels. Not the best option.

Regards the 10 year point.Usually when an Engineer brings this up on a service sheet it's generally ignored by the customer who thinks it's a money making ploy.

They either start to get false alarms or failures.

[John Webb]

If the system or the customer or the engineer (or any combination) are making accurate notes of system false alarms, this should enable the engineer to detect any rise in false alarms as detectors age, and draw this to the occupier's attention. What concerns me about old detectors is those which age so that their sensitivity is reduced, which is unlikely to be picked up even by routine testing of individual heads in situ.
Surely an explicit note calling the client's attention to the recommendations of the standards and pointing out these are not being heeded will (a) cover the engineer's back; (b) may make the client think about renewal.

[Graeme]

Off the top of my head i don't think there is a direct reference to the 10 year in 5839-1 only go by manufacturers recommendations. I.e Apollo recommend change after this period.

[Allen Higginson]

I had thought that it made reference to manufacturers recommendations in relation to detector life but I can't find it - maybe it can be included in with following guidelines for maintenance?

[Graeme]

Excellent suggestion Buzzer then it would be impartial instead of the manufactures guidance which some could see as a way to make money.

I know if Comet suggested i replace my Plasma screen after 5 years,i would think the same.

[ludo694]

Had a talk with maintenance guys who indicated that there has been no incidents of false alarms. The only problem they face is when they do modifications/additions, they have to call in the original system manufacturer to commission the additional work and end up paying more than standard rates. The complex (made of 5 blocks) has different type of installation where one block will have all rooms with detection with the worst case being where there are only call points at fire exits. The maintenance guys did indicate that the bulk of the complex was originally of industrial usage( the reason why there are detectors in floor and ceiling voids), but has since been converted to offices.

The only change to the old system was on the panels and all loops are wired at the panel with radial circuits to the conventional detectors, which were not upgraded/altered.

This issue has been raised by the client's Occ. Health and Safety Dept as ba result of the RRO. The client is still to carry out a risk assessment.

[John Webb]

I am particularly concerned about the building complex having been used for industrial purposes. This implies that the heads may have been subject to extra dust/fumes etc., which could have adversely affected them.
I suggest that you could get LPCB or another test house to check a sample of detector heads chosen at random (say a dozen or so or around 10% of the total) for their compliance to the appropriate BS/EN tests, this will give you an unbiased indication of the condition of the heads. If it is found that the majority of the tested heads no longer comply, then there is strong evidence to present to the client that they need to have the heads replaced to ensure the system is in reasonable working order.

[AnthonyB]

The only problem they face is when they do modifications/additions, they have to call in the original system manufacturer to commission the additional work and end up paying more than standard rates.

Sounds like A. D.ifficult T.rader's system then!

I've seen situations where it's been cheaper to bung a seperate conventional system with heads and panel into a floor & interface it to the central system than just add a few heads to the central system because its a certain make.

I hate this as it leads to increased system failings and UFS as these extra systems rarely get the correc maintenance & even where they do it causes coordination problems (& more UFS)

[Firewolf]

I think the question here is why does your client feel he/she needs to upgrade their fire alarm system?

- Has there been a significant or annoying amount of false alarm activations?
- Has a risk assessment identified that the system maybe inadequate?
- Has a fire alarm engineer made recommendations or condemnations?
- Has a Fire Inspector condemned the system?

If the system works correctly, is serviced and maintained to the guidelines or British Standard prevailing at the time it was installed then it would be extremely difficult for the fire authority to take any action against your client.

In such circumstances the Fire Authority would probably recommend rather than enforce that the system be uprgraded!

Things like battery back up and DDA compliance is something to take into account here. Risk assessment is important too - so long as you know how to risk assess properly of course - otherwise any old Tom Dick or Harry could pronnounce the fire alarm system as "healthy and fit for use".

There are exceptions of course. We will need to see how the RRO works around this subject. But from experience i can tell you that even older systems so long as they work and are regularly serviced are generally accepted by inspecting fire officers.