Adding to an existing system

[stewbow]

Sorry if I am over-using any maximum new topic rules!!!

I did post this message on another site a while ago, but that site mainly dealt with security systems, though it did yeald some very good replies.

Thought I'd see what you guys make of it.

My question is:-

In a type of property such as a Guest House or Hotel that already has a Fire Alarm System installed ( to the 1971 Fire Precautions standard with a Fire Certificate ). Normally you have a situation where heat detectors are sited in the ground floor kitchen, lounge and dining room, and the odd smoke detector is fitted on the landings. Sounders are usually on alternate landings.
Under the new Regulatory Reform Order, Fire Certificates go out of the window, and a decent Fire Risk Assessment will reccommend an L2 System.
So! I would much preffer to do a complete new installation, but it could also be possible to add say 4 smoke detectors and 4 sounders on each floor to the existing cableing ( covering all of the bedrooms ) but this would mean adding FIre Rated 1.5mm cable on to 1mm twin and earth.

If it was a couple of detectors and sounders, I would normally add on and issue a modification certificate, but how far can you go with adding on, and could you then call it an L2 system?


Greatfull for any help and advice

Stuart

[Wiz]

From my understanding of BS5839 part 1 2002 you are allowed to add to an existing non-compliant system. Obviously the additional equipment, installation materials and work must be to latest recommendations of the Standard.

Colin Todd in his book explaining BS5839 Part 1 2002 suggests that the 'cut-off point' would probably be where the new works would double the size of the existing non-complianrt system. After this cut-off point a complete new compliant system should instead be installed.

To get to a L2 system you must have first complied with the recommendations of both L4 & L3 systems. An L2 system is basically L3 system with additional automatic fire detectors. An explanation should be provided of where and why these additional AFD have been included in the system design information.

A system that doesn't meet the criteria of a L1, L3 or L4 system may be described as an L5 system, but again a full explanation of the fire engineering principles used in deciding that a L5 system has been decided upon, must be included in the system design information. My advice is never design a L5 system unless you have a university degree in fire engineering!

I'm sure that if I have got any of the above wrong, there will be many later replies 'correcting' me because there are a lot of very 'able' people who post on this site, and I always learn so much from their advice!

I'm sure you will also be advised to have a full fire risk assessment carried out before you decide to carry out any modifications and ensure that all relevant parties i.e the building owner, the building insurer, the building user, the local authority and fire service are all happy with the findings of the risk assessment and the system category that the finished system will comply to.

[kurnal]

As a fire risk assessor do I need to be at all concerned if I encounter an older system, say to L1 coverage, in which the sounder circuits are in fire rated cable but the detectors and call points are wired in pvc twin and earth? I always thought  that the EOL resistor would give open or short circuit fault monitoring and that was ok for the 1988 standard?
I usually comment that the system is not up to current standards but whilst it remains serviceable there is no justification to make changes. Whats the view of the engineers?

[stewbow]

The new HMG guide re Sleeping Accommodation (and all the FO's that I have spoken to) says that in a Hotel / Guest House situation an L2 System is required. The difference being the requirements of detectors in rooms where people sleep that open onto escape routes (bedrooms) and the need for 75dB at the bedheads.

I don't see an argument for you not to recommend a new system!

[Graeme]

As a fire risk assessor do I need to be at all concerned if I encounter an older system, say to L1 coverage, in which the sounder circuits are in fire rated cable but the detectors and call points are wired in pvc twin and earth? I always thought  that the EOL resistor would give open or short circuit fault monitoring and that was ok for the 1988 standard?
I usually comment that the system is not up to current standards but whilst it remains serviceable there is no justification to make changes. Whats the view of the engineers?

If the system is in good working order then you can't realistically expect the owner will rip it out and install a new one.
If the system was asked to be made to an L2 with say a couple of detectors and sounders in rooms in a small Hotel,
then run this by the FO or whoever is asking and do new works to 2002 standards with modification cert.
If the work was major then i would recommend a new system but the owner will likely get another opinion and go with what he wants(little as possible cost) so you may loose out to some other company who will just add on.

If however the system is asked to be fully compliant to 2002 then it would have to be a re-wire.

Wiz-spot on. L2=same as L3 but added AFD in areas of a fire risk.

[stewbow]

It's only early days, but I've noticed straight away that the attitude here in this forum is that the system probably could be ok or added to, whereas on the other forum, which is mainly frequented by installation engineers, it was 99% a new system or don't touch it with a barge pole!

very interesting

[kurnal]

Steve you have hit the nail on the head. On this forum I think you will get a more rounded view.
The duty of care of  the responsible person under the fire safety order is as far as is reasonably practicable.

Of course if you ask a specialists advice you will get a specialists answer. The answer will be technically perfect but where does that fit into the term reasonably practicable? Case law says that cost can be taken into account to some extent- for example if the cost of the improvement will make the business non- viable then a long term plan or bankruptcy may be the only options.

In your hotel, its very likely that fiire doors, emergency lighting, fire extinguishers, panic hardware,  signs and notices, the external fire escapes also do not comply with current standards- because all these standards have changed in the last few years.  Ask a specialist in any area and they will give their best advice in that area. But there will be a need to put all of these issues into the bigger picture and decide a prority list and a long term plan.

For me in your hotel there may be two options- full system replacement or patch up. The cost/ benefit in the short term may point towards a patch up. We get instant improvement to the exisiting level of safety as quickly and easily as possible. It might even be that you wire a new loop in firetuff or something and put the new and existing detectors in that area  on that. But we give the owner an advisory that the system does not comply, an overview of its maintainability in the long term and let him decide.

Heres another analogy. I take my car in to the garage for a misfire and they recommend a new fuel injection system. But If I spent all that money I would be peeved if it then turned out that the chassis is rotten and the brakes are shot.  If I take the car in for an MOT they will give me a general safety check covering all areas that helps me to decide how to best spend my money.

Your other forum is the engine tuner, this one the MOT bay.

[Wiz]

As a fire risk assessor do I need to be at all concerned if I encounter an older system, say to L1 coverage, in which the sounder circuits are in fire rated cable but the detectors and call points are wired in pvc twin and earth? I always thought  that the EOL resistor would give open or short circuit fault monitoring and that was ok for the 1988 standard?
I usually comment that the system is not up to current standards but whilst it remains serviceable there is no justification to make changes. Whats the view of the engineers?

When the standard was such that a 'short' on detection wiring gave a fire condition at the control panel rather than a fault condition, and that the use of non-fire resistant cables was also permissable, I often wonderd if there could ever be the situation that heat from a fire might be enough to melt the insulation of the cable, and then possibly the conductors would short together and give a fire condition at the panel! I almost belived this might have been a 'system design' feature so I was quite surprised when the 'short to fault' became the standard whilst non-fire resistant cables were still allowed. I thought this change lost the potential for having a sort of automatic linear fire detection system at no extra cost!!!!!!!

[Wiz]

Stewbow, further to earlier replies, I've been giving this query a bit more thought.

I have always found that when you 'condemn' something as not being up to latest standards, the customer often starts seeing you in a negative light because you have brought the 'bad news'. That's why we often have to defend ourselves with the 'don't shoot the messanger ' line.

This negativity may also lead to the customer distrusting you and then you losing any chance of doing work for them now, or in the future. If you can show that you understand the customer's problems and show that you are trying to work out the best solution for them, then you have more chance of maintaining their trust.

I have always understood that new regulations are invariably not retrospective. This is understandable if you consider that a hotel owner, for exmple, could have a costly new fire alarm installation and just 6 months later a new British Standard, for example, was issued and someone could walk in and tell them that their costly new six-month old system was no longer any good because it didn't comply!

As I said previously BS5839 part 1 2002 allows you to add to an existing currently non-compliant system but this must always be weighed up against just how poor their existing system may be and, more importantly, if it really does meet the current needs for a safe system for the way they are using the building.

However, if you are convinced that you really need to encourage them that their system is seriously in need of a complete overhaul you could consider the following couple of points.

Whilst I understand that some properties had to have certain licences issued for a particular use of that property, and these licences may have requested certain minimum requirements for the licence to be issued, that this might not be the case any longer (I'm no expert in this area!), and that new requirements may all be solely based on a fire risk assessment and not a licence. It occurs to me that the insurers for the building may have minimum requirements for the insurance to be valid. This may be worth checking out because it will be no use extending a non-compliant system, if the insurance small print states something like 'the whole fire detection and alarm system must comply fully with all current recommendations of BS 5839 part 1 2002.

I'm not sure exactly how old the existing system is from your query, but it also occurs to me that the existing equipment installed might be past it's 'sell by date' anyway. Automatic detectors normally have a manufacturers recommended working life of about 10 years and eventually, even cable will deteriorate in time. The total costs of any new proposed works and any essential 'out of date' equipment replacement costs could start to get much closer to the costs of a complete new compliant system and encorage the customer to realise the latter option is the most cost-effective for them in the long run.

[kurnal]

Thats spot on Wiz. Very well put.

[Wiz]

Thats spot on Wiz. Very well put.

Thanks Kurnal. I only ever try to be of help to others, and it is good to think that maybe I am being of help and not a hinderance!

[stewbow]

Wiz

I have looked on a couple of occassions, but can't find in Colin Todd's book the part that you mention about extending systems, any directions please?

stuart

[Wiz]

Wiz

I have looked on a couple of occassions, but can't find in Colin Todd's book the part that you mention about extending systems, any directions please?

stuart

Stuart,

My copy of the book is at work, but I'll confirm the page number containing the info as soon as I can.

[Wiz]

Wiz

I have looked on a couple of occassions, but can't find in Colin Todd's book the part that you mention about extending systems, any directions please?

stuart

Stuart,

The reference in BS 5839 part 1 2002 can be found in the last paragraph of Section 1 general, 1 Scope.

The reference in Colin Todd's 'A guide to the BS Code' can be found from the middle area of page 23

Regards

Wiz

[stewbow]

I found the section in Colin Todd's Guide where he talks about doubling the size of a system, but the last paragraph of section 1, scope on page 1 of the BS doesn't mention anything about doubling the size of a System, where exactly does Colin draw his resources from?
or I is right in front of my nose and Im can't see it??